Directors' Remuneration

Lord Dormand of Easington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will introduce legislation, and, if so, when, to prevent excessive payments being made to chief executives and chairmen of private companies.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations 2002 came into force on 1st August this year and apply to quoted companies with financial years ending on 31st December 2002 and after. The aim of the regulations is to bring transparency to the process of setting directors' pay; to make companies more accountable to shareholders in this area; and to provide for an improved linkage between performance and pay. There are no plans at present to introduce further legislation.

Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, that sounds promising and I hope that it leads to something in the not-too-distant future. However, is my noble friend aware of the widespread and deep concern that exists over the scandalous increases in expenses being made in pay and perks to some top executives and, in some cases, without justification because companies are losing money and their directors are being paid extra for it? Is he further aware that it is obviously completely inadequate to depend on shareholder votes—a matter which has been talked about for some time—and that clear and strong legislation is needed if the problem is to be dealt with? Finally, will the Government consider making it compulsory for a report on directors' remuneration to be included in companies' annual reports and for the award of large increases to be justified?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am aware of the concern that has been expressed about directors' payments. The purpose of the regulations that we have just introduced is that a report on directors' pay, which will go into considerable detail, will be part of the annual reporting cycle. It will cover the current details of individual directors' pay packages and include a justification for any compensation package given in the preceding year. It will also give details of the board's consideration of directors' pay, details of the company's policies on directors' remuneration, and a performance graph providing information on the company's performance in comparison with an appropriate share market index. Quoted companies will also be required to table a resolution at each AGM on the remuneration report. Therefore, I believe that we are doing many of the things that the noble Lord asks for. We should now await the impact of the regulations after 31st December, when they will come fully into effect.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of Western Provident Association. Does the noble Lord accept my view that, while compulsion will not and cannot operate here, there is an urgent need for a change of culture? Surely the key point is that, as distinct from profit-sharing schemes, the payment of disproportionate salaries, and especially creating an expectation of large bonuses, is thoroughly bad leadership of subordinates. Is that not the culture change that needs to be effected? After all, in the services people are expected to do their jobs well without receiving bonuses, and the services are reliably delivered.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the purpose of the legislation that we have introduced is to bring about greater transparency and to put the responsibility for that fully on to the shareholders, whose money is involved. I believe that they also have the right and the responsibility to make clear what they expect of the leaders of the companies in which they have invested. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that in some cases there is a need for a change of culture. I believe that the stimulus for that should come from the shareholders of the companies whose money is involved.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare an interest as a recipient of non-excessive pay in a company. My noble friend appeared to say that he has no intention of legislating to deal with this problem. I entirely agree with that. It would be absurd to try to legislate. How could he define in legislation the word "excessive"? However, does he accept that the main problem in this respect is remuneration committees? Some do an excellent job. Most will say that they are concerned with awarding the rate for the job—a little like footballers! But sometimes that argument is not acceptable and the issue may merit a debate or review. Will my noble friend consider that?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, obviously it is impossible to think of any pay being excessive for my noble friend. I believe that the difficulty in this matter lies in the problem that he has set out. What are the Government expected to do? Are they expected to lay down the pay for particular directors in particular circumstances? That would involve setting out not only the appropriate salary for every director's job in the country; it would also involve judging the performance of those directors and the circumstances of their company. I believe that that can only be done by remuneration committees and the shareholders of the company. I cannot see that it would make sense for the Government to intervene in that process.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, has asked this identical question at least six times over the past year demonstrates the serious concern on this issue, not only in this House but in the country? Will he take this opportunity to confirm that the Government will consider the extremely interesting suggestion made by Sir Iain Vallance, the recently retired president of the CBI, that with regard to the issue of the election and re-election of directors at annual meetings we should move to a system of one person, one vote? In that way, on that issue and that issue alone, the vote of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, in companies in which he is a shareholder will have equal weight to that of the Prudential.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am perfectly prepared to acknowledge that there is serious concern about the matter. I should point out that we have just introduced regulations, the purpose of which is to expose this issue more clearly to shareholders and to seek their views. The suggestion made by the noble Lord that everyone's vote should count for the same would introduce a major and a radical change to company law that would require a great deal of debate. Because it would be a radical change, it would also require a great deal of justification.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, when deciding pay increases, should remuneration committees—I declare an interest as I have been a member of boards and of remuneration committees—be encouraged to have due regard not just to the salary levels of their peers in similar organisations—a somewhat incestuous practice—but also to those of public servants with equally responsible and demanding jobs such as vice-chancellors of universities, heads of schools, High Court judges and so on?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope that ministerial salaries would also be included. Speaking as someone who has none, it is an important comparison! Remuneration committees must do the job that they are asked to do. They are asked to give the remuneration, and only the necessary remuneration, to reward people properly in the commercial market in which they operate. They are asked to do that by shareholders. If there is an area of complaint it is the one that has been mentioned: that often the process appears to be incestuous and is talked up by the remuneration consultancy firms, which leads to a spiral. I believe that it is time that shareholders said that they do not want their money to be used in that way. It is for shareholders to make that clear because it is their money.

Credit Rating Agencies

Lord Higgins: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made in preventing the practice of credit rating agencies releasing personal financial information about an individual to family members and others thought to have a financial connection with that individual; and what steps have been taken to ensure that individuals are not denied credit because of inaccurate or inadequate information provided by those agencies.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the agencies are implementing procedures approved and monitored by the Information Commissioner to restrict the disclosure of such third party information. Of the two main agencies that are not yet compliant, I understand that one expects to be so by 2003. The other is keeping to a schedule agreed with the commissioner and will report progress to him later this month. The Data Protection Act requires information to be both accurate and adequate. The commissioner can take enforcement action if it is not.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it the case that some four years after the passing of the Data Protection Act, and some five months after she last replied to this Question, companies are still not complying? They have had years to get their computer systems right. Should the data protection authorities impose a tight deadline and, if necessary, impose penalties on companies that have not complied?
	On the second point, it is clear that inadequate and inaccurate information is seriously affecting many people: sometimes the wealthy, but more particularly the poor. Should it be possible for the public not only to correct mistakes in their data, as they are able to do, but also to add additional information if it is clear that their credit record is inadequate and having an adverse effect on them?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the anxiety of the noble Lord about this matter. The Act was passed in 1998 and came into force in 2000. However, there is a need to amend business systems, including IT systems, and the proposals cannot be implemented by every organisation overnight. It is not only the credit reference agencies which have to make significant changes, but also the lenders which supply them with information. The commissioner is taking the matter seriously. The agencies have a schedule with which they are complying and the commissioner can take action if he believes that the agencies are not addressing their minds with the appropriate level of vigour to the issue. From what we can gather, it appears that at the moment the commissioner is content with the progress that is being made. It is for the commissioner to act independently of government in relation to this matter if he feels that there is insufficient progress.
	There is also an opportunity, as the noble Lord rightly says, under Section 7 of the 1998 Act for anyone to obtain a copy of information held about him or her by a credit reference agency for a fee of £2 and to have incorrect information removed or amended or to have a note put on the file to explain why he or she believes that the information is wrong. There is an opportunity for people to do that.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is a much wider problem than the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has suggested? Does she accept that at what I would describe as the bottom end of the loan finance business there are a significant number of advertisements being shown every day on the television aimed at people at the bottom end of the market, to which they are responding, and they are then being turned down? Their credit reference agency is putting them down as having been ruled out and such people are often not equipped to go through the "middle class" route of writing the kind of letters suggested by the noble Baroness. Does she accept that that is a significant problem?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we can see that that is a problem. People need the right level of information provided to them. The noble Lord will know that there is a task force on over-indebtedness, which was set up in October 2000, to focus on practical ways of achieving more responsible lending and borrowing. Its first report was completed in April 2001 and published in July 2001. Five working groups were then set up to consider the key questions that consumers should ask when taking out a loan, identifying best practice and certain marketing techniques and the provision of key information to consumers. As the noble Lord rightly says, those matters are important. They are, as they should be, being addressed and we are dealing with the matter.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that, although there is a commissioner who, as she has explained, has an independent role in the matter, the Government have their own responsibility to deal with this market and to clean it up? They should not show as little interest as we have already heard this afternoon they show in the case of scandalous directors' fees in the corporate sector.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that no one in this House will misinterpret what I said to be a lack of interest. The Government acted and acted speedily. The Data Protection Act has greatly improved the position since 2000 when it came into force.
	The role of the commissioner is an important role, and the rights of individuals are very much better looked after now than ever before. It is a matter which the Government intend to keep under active review. The commissioner has the right and responsibility to discharge the duties given to him under the Act by Parliament. We expect the commissioner to discharge that duty and to discharge it properly.

Public Health Laboratory Service

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What they consider the public safety benefits will be of transferring the national network of Public Health Laboratory Service laboratories into local National Health Service trusts.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the benefit of the transfer of most PHLS laboratories to the NHS will be a strengthened service to combat infectious diseases.
	The remaining PHLS laboratories will provide a regional and national specialist microbiology service alongside those of the microbiology research authority in the proposed new health protection agency.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not utterly perverse that at a time when the Government are expressing concern about smallpox and biological warfare they propose to break up the expert network of microbiological laboratories that we have in this country? The US is building one, rather than destroying the network as the Government currently propose. Surely, this can only worsen rather than improve public health and safety protection. Will the Minister undertake to review the matter again, to consult more widely and to make sure that the full network of PHLS laboratory services goes into the new health protection agency?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. We have reviewed; we have consulted; and we are basing this decision on the report by the Chief Medical Officer, informed by lessons learned from September 11th. Undeniably there are many strengths in our current system. I pay tribute to those organisations for the work that they have undertaken over the years. But, as the Chief Medical Officer reported, despite those strengths, there is much that needs to be done to modernise these services. There is no integrated approach at the moment to encompass all aspects of health protection, including infectious diseases, chemical and radiation hazards. The new health protection agency will allow us to do that, while the transfer of local PHLS general microbiology services to the NHS will strengthen the public health outputs of the National Health Service.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I must express an interest as a former chairman of the Public Health Laboratory Service board. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the network of laboratories at PHLS have done a marvellous job in rapidly detecting outbreaks of infection and in protecting the nation? Does he not also agree with me and with the board, which has repeatedly brought the matter to the attention of the Secretary of State, on the dangers of dismantling this network and handing it over to individual NHS trusts to run; the even greater risks of doing that too hastily—by next April, I believe; and in relying in the future on primary care trusts to fund this function at a time when it is unlikely that PCTs will put this high on their list of priorities?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend concerning the actual decisions made. I pay tribute to his chairmanship of PHLS and to its work over the years.
	So far as concerns the question of speed, we have considered that. We consider that there is a risk that delay in transferring the laboratories would perpetuate a great deal of uncertainty among the staff of those laboratories. It is better to get on with the job.
	With regard to funding, the laboratories are being transferred with budgets and resources. Additionally, there will be transitional funding to protect the infrastructures as they are transferred. As to PCT performance and funding in the future, I give the assurance to the House that we shall vigorously performance-manage primary care trusts in this and their other public health functions.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, can the Minister say whether he is considering extra staff for the NHS trusts to deal with the matter? If so, will they not need particular expertise? And how will that problem be tackled?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I expect the laboratory staff to transfer with the laboratories to a designated NHS trust.

Lord Chan: My Lords, in view of present national and international concerns about biological weapons and unusual agents that are not routinely investigated by laboratories, does the Minister agree that this is not the time to transfer such important functions? Can he say what arrangements are in place in order to ensure that unusual microbiological agents can be detected rapidly?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is the very purpose of establishing a new health protection agency, which can provide an integrated service and build on the work of the existing three agencies concerned. So far as concerns the question of the transfer of most PHLS general microbiology services to the NHS, essentially the transfer will allow the proposed new agency to concentrate on public health rather than on general clinical diagnostic services.
	It is also worth bearing in mind that the HPA will continue to run nine regional laboratories which can undertake much of the work referred to by the noble Lord.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that there are already a large number of organisations that are busy with health which have more power than common sense. I make no judgment about what he does in this particular case, but will he do what he can to reduce the number of these infernal busybodies who do far more harm than good?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is always urging me to cut down the number of committees in the health service. Here is an example where we intend to merge three organisations into one. I believe that the arrangements will be much more effective. They will build on the strength of the current organisations; but they will also tie an integrated service much more into the National Health Service. That will be a major advance.

Lord Winston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that matters of bacteriology, in particular, and epidemiology are national rather than local and that, therefore, a central, integrated service is vitally important? Is not one of the problems of the old PHLS that it has been consistently underfunded, not only perhaps by the present Government but by previous governments and the fact that funding has not been corrected for inflation has led to some of its difficulties?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that we need a fully integrated approach. The new arrangements will enable us to do that both by integration at national level and by fuller integration between the HPA and the National Health Service locally.
	So far as concerns resources, additional funds have been put into the PHLS. But of course there will be management savings from the merger and the integration of the three organisations into one. We shall certainly keep the budget of the new agency under close review.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we are in a very complex field at the moment, with the problem of CJD and the import of safe blood products and blood plasma for transfusions? Can he assure the House that there will not be fragmentation?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I can, my Lords.

A-level Examinations

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What measures they intend to put in place to restore confidence in A-levels.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, following Mike Tomlinson's initial report, regrading is now in progress. Affected students should be advised of changes by 15th October. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is considering how to implement his other recommendations and will make further announcements shortly. As a second phase of his review, Mike Tomlinson will review arrangements for setting, maintaining and judging A-level standards, and ensuring their consistency over time.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the damage done to the credibility of our national examination system as a result of the A-level debacle this summer? With so many students now staying on to A-level and its equivalent—level 3 national vocational qualification—in schools and colleges, not just thousands but hundreds of thousands of young people are affected by what happened this summer. It is vital that such an examination, which sets a national standard, should be beyond any possibility—even a perception—of ministerial influence. Can the Minister assure us that in any changes made post-Tomlinson, the QCA or its successor, will be made clearly and genuinely independent of any possible ministerial influence?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, to respond to the final point made by the noble Baroness, it is absolutely clear from the work that Mike Tomlinson has already done that there has been no ministerial interference. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills said, the QCA is a statutory, independent body set up to maintain the standards and integrity of the examination system. It is a fundamental principle that the Government have no role in that; nor should we. I am sure that noble Lords who were members of previous governments would agree with that.
	The A-level is the gold standard of our system. If there is any doubt about that standard being devalued, we must act. We have acted. The Tomlinson report will ensure that we can have full confidence in the system in future.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as the grandparent of a student who took her A-levels this summer. Does the Minister accept that the hasty introduction of AS-levels and the lack of testing of the A2 part of the A-level has been a contributory factor to the present chaos? Will she now take full responsibility for that scandalous situation?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have always hesitated to use language such as "scandalous" in your Lordships' House. I accept, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has accepted, that we have lessons to learn. Indeed, Mike Tomlinson has made clear that within the introduction of the AS-level—which was fully piloted and tested—we should perhaps have done more piloting of the A2-level. That is a lesson we have taken on board and accept.
	I make clear that we must keep the matter in context, recognising that it is important that the affected students are dealt with speedily, properly and with strong resolution. But, as last year, 92 per cent of students with a confirmed place in higher education were accepted at their first choice institution.

Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords—

Lord Quirk: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps we may hear first from the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, and then from the noble Lord, Lord Quirk.

Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, what is now the role of my noble friend's department in the marking and relative grading of A-levels?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I have made clear, the QCA is responsible as a statutory, independent body. We intend to ensure that that position continues. The department's role has been to ensure that the independent system works fairly and efficiently in the interests of all of our young people. We all agree that our young people have the right to expect that at the end of their course their examination papers are marked fairly and consistently. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that.

Lord Quirk: My Lords, in the longer term, are the Government at least considering replacing A-levels—the two-part A-levels; AS and A2—with the international baccalaureate?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in our 14 to 19 strategy, we have laid out the issues that we believe to be part of the debate. In the current context, we want to make clear that we have full confidence in ensuring that our A-level system works efficiently. But we always want to have a continuing debate—noble Lords have been part of this process for many years—about the breadth of subjects that students should study. Indeed, it is on that basis that we introduced the AS-level. Noble Lords will want to be part of that debate, but I do not want to detract from the current situation by entering into it now.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister accept that failure to predict a higher percentage of high grades in the A2 this year suggests that the department does not have its ear to the ground? Many schools were fully aware that only the more able students were continuing to the A2; many less able students stopped after the AS. Was the Department for Education and Skills not aware of that?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, if we consider the history of the introduction of the AS and the A2-level, the assumption was that students would have an opportunity to review the subjects in which they continued after AS-levels. It is not a question of what the department predicted. The issue is what were the consequences for examining boards in their relationship to the QCA and in what they believed to be the situation. In this case, the department played its part absolutely correctly in linking with the QCA.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, what will happen to those students who failed to get to their first choice university if, after regrading, they are found to have the necessary qualifications?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the first thing to say is that no student will lose any place as a result. We want to ensure that we carefully examine the impact and, after 15th October, we will have a clear idea of the number of students affected. We have worked closely with Universities UK, which has been extremely supportive, and with individual universities to ensure that several things happen. First, we have asked the universities to consider honouring propositions put to students before August this year; secondly, we have considered those universities that may take students who may be able to join their courses; thirdly, we shall ensure that students are not financially disadvantaged; and, fourthly, we shall support universities if they need it to ensure a proper transition for students.

Adoption and Children Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 77, Schedule 1, Clauses 78 and 79, Schedule 2, Clauses 80 to 135, Schedules 3 to 5, Clauses 136 to 143, Schedule 6, Clauses 144 to 146.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received. In moving the Motion, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say that the usual channels have agreed that the Bill will be recommitted to deal with Parts 3, 5 and 8, in view of the government amendments. The major government amendments in question have been tabled and will be printed on tomorrow's Marshalled List; the Motion is on tomorrow's Order Paper. I will move it at the start of business tomorrow, and I shall then say a few more words about the precise procedure.
	Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	Report received.
	Clause 1 [Naturalisation: knowledge of language and society]:
	[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 2, line 19, at end insert—
	"(1B) Before making any regulation pursuant to section 41(1)(ba) or (bb), the Secretary of State shall consult—
	(a) persons appearing to him to have a special interest in the matters dealt with by the regulation concerned, and
	(b) such other persons as he considers appropriate."

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I should be most grateful if the Minister would allow me to deal with Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 separately, because they are entirely unrelated. I can deal with them quickly but more intelligently if they are degrouped.
	The point of Amendment No. 2, which reflects an amendment that was moved in both the Commons and this place in Committee, is to make consultation an essential part of the process leading to the tests that, under the Bill, are to be taken by those seeking citizenship. There is no argument on these Benches with the notion of the new tests—advanced, as they are, in a constructive spirit and designed to improve the chances of those becoming citizens of finding their place in our society quickly and effectively. But the point made in June in the Committee of this House and in the Commons was that there must be consultation about the curriculum for the new tests.
	The amendments moved in the Commons and the Lords were defective. If I may say so while causing no offence to my colleagues in the Commons, nor my noble friends here, who moved the amendments, they were defective in two regards. First, they specified three organisations that were to be consulted and no others. It was reasonably remarked by several of your Lordships that it was unsatisfactory simply to consult three organisations—however illustrious; I may say that I am president of the Citizenship Foundation, which was one of the three. I fully accept that. As your Lordships will see, the amendment merely requires the Secretary of State to consult,
	"persons appearing to him to have a special interest in the matters dealt with by the regulation concerned".
	That was the first objection, and I accept it.
	The second, even more forceful, objection by the Government was that the amendment would not have secured consultation because it required the agreement of the three named consultees to the matters in respect of which there was consultation. That was a proper point to be made by the Government. My amendment does not include that impediment and accepts that the Secretary of State shall consult and then deal with the results of the consultation as he or she thinks fit.
	So why make the amendment at all? The answer is simple. The Government are doing the right thing in their consultation process. I am sure that the House has full confidence in Professor Sir Bernard Crick and his team and the work they are doing. I have no doubt that they will come up with something that is constructive and creative and will aid and abet the process of citizenship. However, it is wrong for us to make assumptions about the nature and capacity of future governments and future Home Secretaries.
	We would not be doing our job if we did not insert a requirement for consultation which would bolt and bar the door to the prospect in the future of an illiberal government and a weak Home Secretary feeling inclined to respond to violent public reaction to this or that event by rushing immediately, without any need for consultation, to change the curriculum for those who seek citizenship. A statutory command to consult would in such circumstances act as a breakwater. I hope that the Minister recollects that when he last dealt with the amendment he said that he thought it "inconceivable" that there would not be consultation. The amendment would make sure that it was inconceivable. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, makes the case in his usual persuasive way. In a sense, he has anticipated part of what I shall say. The noble Lord paid great tribute to the Government for the way in which we have consulted extensively with NGOs, particularly on the White Paper. As he knows, we have received a fantastic volume of correspondence, most of which favours our proposals. The views of the organisations that responded to the White Paper will, of course, be taken into account as detailed proposals are developed. However, I wonder what further level of consultation required by the Bill could usefully be added.
	It will come as no surprise to the noble Lord that we have sympathy with his view and with what he is trying to achieve. Having listened to his argument, I must say that any future government who did not wish to consult would simply remove any obligation on them to do so. All we can do is try to conduct ourselves in the best way possible in the circumstances and do what we can to ensure that consultation is woven into the approach of government for the future. We have tried to ensure that there is effective consultation on the detail of the proposals by appointing an independent advisory group. The noble Lord acknowledged that, and I am grateful to him for paying tribute to Professor Sir Bernard Crick, who, I am sure, would not mind my saying that he will guard his independence fiercely and in a forthright way and will ensure that relevant, properly interested bodies are fully consulted.
	Noble Lords may wish to know that, in the proposed programme of work for the advisory group, there is a request that it should advise on how to monitor and report on the implementation of the arrangements relating to the test in its early years. It may be that, in the future, a less enlightened government would seek to overturn the group's good work, although that would indeed be the act of a foolish administration. They might wish to impose something less satisfactory, but I am not convinced that the noble Lord's amendment, however well spirited and well intentioned, would guard against that.
	To commit the Secretary of State to consult,
	"persons appearing to him to have a special interest in the matters",
	would be a bridge too far. After all, anyone who wanted to apply for naturalisation could describe himself or herself as having a special interest. Where would the consultation begin and end? I fear that, admirable though the noble Lord's intentions may be—they always are—he could be saddling us with a cumbersome and, arguably, unnecessarily bureaucratic burden. We have already undertaken, through the advisory group, to consult bodies that appear to us to have a special interest in the matters. If there are bodies that feel that they have been excluded from the process or have somehow been missed, we will be happy, as always, to receive representations from them. That is as far as we could go. The amendment is extremely well intentioned, but accepting it would not greatly advance our position.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I hope that the House will be as dissatisfied with the Minister's response as I am. The burden of the point that I sought to make was not that what is being done now is inadequate; plainly, it is adequate. I was talking of future circumstances. It is no good the Minister saying that a future illiberal government with a weak Home Secretary would simply change the statute so that they did not have to consult. They could not do it.
	It is equally wide of the mark to complain that the amendment would create a bureaucratic monster and that every person being naturalised could expect to be consulted. The amendment refers clearly to,
	"persons appearing to him"—
	the Secretary of State—
	"to have a special interest in the matters".
	That is not a new formula. If the Minister examines the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, he will see that both have compulsory consultation provisions. The amendment would not open the door to any more consultation than the Secretary of State thought reasonable in the circumstances.
	I am sorry that the Government do not see my point; it is important. However, at this juncture, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Avebury: moved Amendment No. 3:
	After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
	NATURALISATION BY DESCENT
	A person who—
	(a) was born prior to 1 January 1983; and
	(b) at the time of his birth would have been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies under section 5 of the British Nationality Act 1948 (c. 56) (acquisition by descent) had the reference therein to "father" been a reference to either parent;
	shall be entitled to register as a British citizen, and a person so registered shall be a British citizen by descent.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I return to a matter raised in Committee about children born overseas to British mothers and foreign fathers prior to the British Nationality Act 1981. I need not speak for long; the arguments have been rehearsed. We had two useful meetings with the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, during the summer. I thank him for the way in which he consulted the Opposition Front Benches on all the matters raised in Committee and for the detailed and careful consideration he agreed to give to the matters we raised.
	This is a matter of principle, which touches on gender discrimination. After the 1981 Act, we had a situation in which all the children born overseas to British fathers could become British citizens, but those born overseas to British mothers could do so only if the mother made an application during the minority of the child. If, for any reason, the mother was unaware of that limitation or had no opportunity to take advantage of the process before the child became an adult, that child forfeited for ever the chance of becoming a British citizen. As the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, knows, there are some few hundreds of people all over the world who are in this position, not all of whom may wish to take advantage of the new clause if your Lordships see fit to pass it; but many of them do. The noble Lord is aware of the circumstances of a few cases that have been drawn to his attention.
	The chairman of the organisation which has been set up to act on behalf of these people—CAMPAIGNS—is living here by a thread at the moment. He received a letter from the Home Office dated 24th September telling him that he can appeal under the Human Rights Act against the decision not to allow him to remain, and threatening him that if he did not so appeal the Home Office would consider taking out a deportation order against him. That was a most unfortunate thing for it to have done when the matter was about to be raised in your Lordships' House. I hope that no action will have been taken in the meanwhile to disturb his quiet enjoyment of his life in this country. It is really quite monstrous that the chair of the organisation set up to lobby on behalf of these people is himself threatened with being thrown out of the United Kingdom.
	He is not the only one. I drew another case to the attention of the Minister when I went to see him. That case concerns a constituent of Dr Ian Gibson, MP, who was married to an American. Her husband turned out to be an abuser and a drunkard, and she separated from him and came back to Britain. But her son, who was never registered as a British citizen, remained with his father and subsequently moved to live on his own. This lady has now had an operation. She wanted her son to come over and look after her during the period of her illness, and he did so. But now he has been told that the period of his visit has expired and he has not been granted an extension. When Dr Gibson heard from his constituent, her son was being told to leave because he was not eligible for an extension of his stay, even though his mother was still ill.
	There are many other cases of a similar kind. The Minister is aware of the case of Mr Kenny Richey, who is on death row in Ohio. He is likely to have benefited from being a British citizen because we would then have been able to intervene with the authorities to prevent his execution. But, as he is not eligible for British citizenship, we cannot do anything under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Optional Protocols.
	We could perhaps make representations on his behalf ex gratia, and I hope that we will do so in view of his long connections with this country. He was born in the United States but spent the whole of his childhood in Scotland until he reached his 18th birthday. So, to all intents and purposes, he is as British as any of us in the Chamber.
	This is an opportunity for removing from the statute book an unnecessary violation of human rights in regard to gender discrimination, as we do in all other fields of legislation. I hope that now that the Minister has had time to consider the representations that we made to him on two successive occasions during the summer, as well as those we made in Committee and the letter that I wrote, at his invitation, setting out the case in some detail, he will have enough information to be able to accept the proposed new clause. I beg to move.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I rise, briefly, to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I thought that the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, expressed in Committee, in favour of the position set out in the Bill were uncharacteristically weak. It is clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam—that, under the amendment, people with exiguous links to the United Kingdom would be able to become British nationals—would apply equally to those who derive their nationality from their fathers, a category which continues to enjoy rights of British nationality. This seems to be wholly unjustifiable sex discrimination.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, if the amendment is agreed to it would give a limited number of people—all of whom have British mothers—the right to register as British nationals. Moreover, as the noble Lord also said, the present situation does sometimes give rise to really serious cases of individual hardship.
	I urge the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to reflect again on this matter and to support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It is not a matter which cuts across the broad thrust of government policy under the Bill. It is a matter where the noble Lord can quite fairly be open-minded and wholly objective.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his courtesy.
	As has been said, under the British Nationality Act 1948 a female citizen of the United Kingdom could not pass on her citizenship. The British Nationality Act 1981 now allows women to transmit on equal terms but, for a number of reasons, this change was not made retrospective. The amendment we are now considering would confer an entitlement to registration as a British citizen on any person who was born before 1st January 1983 and would have been a citizen of the United Kingdom by descent but for the inability at that time of female citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies to pass on their citizenship.
	The entitlement would not as I understand it be confined to those who would have become British citizens—rather than, for example, British overseas citizens—on commencement of the 1981 Act. It may therefore be seeking to give them an advantage that, even without the sexual discrimination in the old law, they would not otherwise have had. If that is the noble Lord's intention, we would have difficulty in supporting the amendment in its present wording.
	When the Bill was in Committee on this issue, my noble friend Lord Bassam explained the Government's view that those seeking citizenship as adults should be required to demonstrate connections with this country over and above those based on parentage—in other words, that they would satisfy the requirements under the 1981 Act relating to naturalisation. We accept that many of those who stand to benefit from the noble Lord's amendment would have considerable difficulty in satisfying the naturalisation requirements given that absence from the immigration rules of any specific provision which would allow them to be admitted from the United Kingdom.
	In the light of what has been said, we shall reflect further on the issue and submit our own proposals for consideration on Third Reading. I am grateful for the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, without wishing to encourage him to repeat the practice. Although this is not the place for case work, I shall look into the specific cases to which he referred. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, we have had a very good start to our proceedings today. I am sorry that my noble friend did not receive an equally favourable reply to his excellent amendment. I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I look forward to receiving further news of the Government's plans, I hope in good time for us to consider them and take advice on them before discussing them on the Floor of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 1 [Citizenship Ceremony, Oath and Pledge]:

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 84, leave out line 33.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the proposed amendment is as innocuous as it looks. It seeks the removal of one word—the word "Pledge"—from the proposed new Schedule 5, where the citizenship oath and pledge is set out.
	Like many noble Lords, in the few years that I have been here I have conducted a rather ineffectual campaign for clear and citizen-friendly legislation. If ever there was a need for the greatest clarity, it is in the words that we are considering in this amendment. This is the oath and pledge to be taken by every person wishing to become a citizen. They are very often people with a less than perfect command of the subtleties of English. It is an oath and pledge of solemn intent and effect and is given new significance and importance by the ceremony which the Bill seeks to introduce and which the House seems unanimously to support. Yet at the heart of these few but significant words is a distinction as between an "oath" and a "pledge" which will do nothing but confuse those who have to take it.
	I have tried this out on a number of my colleagues, both in my firm and in this House and by reference to dictionaries. I have asked them what is the difference between these two words. I have received no answer. The nearest to an answer is that an oath is more significant than a pledge because it has consequences if broken which a pledge does not.
	If there is indeed a difference between the old part of the statement which is an oath and the new part which is a pledge, there should not be. The pledge is no less important than the oath. The words are:
	"I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen".
	Therefore, if there is any distinction between the meaning of the two words, my case is that there should not be. If there is no distinction, let us abandon the word "pledge" so that the poor people who read this do not have to try to get their heads round the difference between the two parts of this highly significant ceremony. The White Paper appears to anticipate that there will be a single oath. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hope that I shall not engage the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, too much in having to reject the thrust of his amendment.
	The amendment would bring together two distinct parts and fuse them into one. Although it is true that the citizenship oath and pledge are distinct on the face of the Bill, in practice, as I am sure the noble Lord would have gone on to argue, they will be spoken seamlessly. The noble Lord desires an amalgamated oath and pledge and, in practice, that is what we shall have.
	The oath and pledge proposed in the Bill were the result of careful consideration and full consultation with both the public through the White Paper and other government departments. It was decided to retain the current oath of allegiance and to add to it a new pledge of loyalty to the UK and its values. All British citizens, whether by birth or naturalisation, owe a common law duty of allegiance to the sovereign. We wish to add to that duty a pledge for those acquiring British citizenship which will serve to underscore—to underline, to stress the importance of—upholding human rights and freedoms, democratic values and, importantly, the rule of law. The separation of the oath and the pledge retains constitutional coherence in that the oath retains the existing subject state language and the pledge introduces citizen state language. We wish to retain this distinction by having a separate oath and pledge.
	We have made efforts to ensure that the oath and pledge taken on the acquisition of the different types of British citizenship are as consistent as possible. To amalgamate the oath and pledge only when made in the United Kingdom would result in the illogical position that there would remain a separate oath and pledge in the British Overseas Territories.
	For those reasons, interesting though the noble Lord's amendment is, we must ultimately conclude that it does not fit the purpose for which we are attempting to progress policy as currently stated.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he tell the House just what is the difference between an oath and a pledge?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I believe I made plain earlier, one addresses the issue of allegiance; the other is about the debate around the United Kingdom and its system of values. If the noble Lord examines the oath and the pledge, he will see that there is some difference. But in acknowledging his point that the two are clearly part of the same thing, as I said earlier, we expect that these will follow one from the other seamlessly.

The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, to help the Minister, there is a difference between an oath and a pledge. An oath is made to Almighty God, not to the Crown: it concerns the Crown and has a condition at the end, "according to law". I am not sure that that would be entirely appropriate for the pledge.

Noble Lords: Answer that!

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I will, my Lords. I disagree roundly with the noble Bishop—I have not given the right preface to his dignity; I should say "the right reverend Prelate". I do not see why Almighty God should not be as relevant to what is in the pledge as to what is in the oath—especially since what is in the oath is to the Queen in Parliament, so no real distinction can be made there.
	The reason I did not table a number of consequential amendments, including the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is that I wanted first to test the Government's reaction to the amendment.
	The noble Lord is absolutely correct in his anticipation of my feelings. I sincerely and powerfully feel that this House so often lets itself down—or rather, lets the citizens down. We already have six types of nationality and three types of citizenship. If we cannot get our heads round a single statement for people from overseas who do not have a command of the language to make, we are merely playing games with ourselves and them. Nevertheless, I must beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 4 [Deprivation of citizenship]:

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I must inform the House that if Amendment No. 5 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 6 because of pre-emption.

Lord Dholakia: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (2).

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister. We have had a number of discussions on this matter during the Summer Recess. I am grateful to him, although I think that there is still a difference of opinion between the method proposed in this clause as against the views that we hold on these Benches.
	The existing Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 permits deprivation of citizenship for a limited class of people who have British citizenship by birth or by naturalisation. The power to deprive a person of citizenship has been used once in 54 years. The proposed new Section 40(2) to be inserted into the 1981 Act by this clause, provides a sweeping new power to deprive a person of British nationality not just where that nationality was acquired by grant in response to an application but also where it was acquired automatically by birth in the UK or by descent.
	The Bill does not permit deprivation of citizenship where this would leave a person stateless. Thus, even without the amendment, the power can be used only against those who hold dual nationality. So in reality a person who is a British citizen cannot be deprived of his citizenship; a person of another nationality who is lawfully settled in this country cannot be deprived of his nationality; but a person holding dual nationality would fall within the provision of this clause.
	In Committee, the Government's best argument for a bad clause was that by removing the distinction between naturalised/registered citizens and citizens by birth they were removing a discrimination between those born British and those naturalised as British.
	The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said :
	"The present law discriminates against those who have acquired citizenship by registration or naturalisation. As such, it tends to devalue these processes by marking out people who became citizens in either of these ways as, potentially, second-class citizens".—[Official Report, 8/7/02; col. 502.]
	On 25th April, the Constitution Committee of this House queried why,
	"this innovative power is justified".
	The then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, responded that it was intended to remove the distinctions between those who became citizens by birth and by naturalisation—an extreme example of "equality" by levelling down—but he did not explain why that was necessary. He also suggested that the removal of nationality may "prevent or deter" individuals from carrying out anti-British activity in the future; it would seem more likely to encourage it, as the person would have no reason to feel any loyalty towards Britain in the future. If the activities in which the person was involved indeed caused significant harm, it is inconceivable that there would be no appropriate criminal charge. The same point was made in the letter by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution. Similar treatment is of course achieved by a levelling down and taking powers to deprive British-born people of their nationality.
	It is correct that the proposal to leave out the new Section 40(2) will get rid of existing powers to remove a person's British citizenship. However, as I pointed out, this power has been used only once in 54 years. The argument that the clause is there to assist in the war against terrorism is unconvincing. The UK's international obligations would be better met by prosecuting for terrorist offences, or extraditing people to face prosecution, than by removing a person's British citizenship as a preliminary to exporting the problem by sending the person to another country, perhaps to one less willing or less able to bring a prosecution.
	Since 1973, the Government have had no need for this power. In the past year, since 11th September 2001, the Government have enacted the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which provides mechanisms for dealing with people alleged to have committed terrorist offences. At that time, the Home Secretary confirmed in relation to detention without trial that where it is possible to conduct a trial here, it would be done. That must also be the case for British nationals, regardless of how they obtained their citizenship. If the Secretary of State is satisfied that they have done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK, it is highly unlikely that this would not also be a crime, for which they would be prosecuted rather than being deprived of their citizenship.
	Exporting potential terrorists elsewhere without first charging them with an offence and establishing their guilt only adds to the danger and instability in the world. In a briefing from the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, it said that it fears that this power is being extended in the name of the fight against international terrorism and may be aimed at the small number of British-born Muslim militants who joined the Al'Qaeda movement. The new Section 40 could have retrospective application. On day two of its coming into effect, the Secretary of State could decide to deprive British-born nationals of their status by reason of something that they may have done prior to the Act's commencement. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us on whether that is the intention. If so, it is an unnecessary provision of retrospective legislation, as people could be dealt with under other provisions, for example, the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870.
	Even in the United States of America, the few individuals who are alleged to have fought for Al'Qaeda do not face the loss of their American citizenship. Only last week, John Walker Lindh was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment, but he retained his American citizenship. Clause 4 does not recognise our responsibility in the international community to prosecute for terrorist offences. Instead, the intention is to strip people of British nationality and subsequently to expel them, passing the problem to someone else.
	Those are our arguments. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us as regards the issues that I identified. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: My Lords, in the Library late last night I read with some surprise in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child a provision that a child has a right to a name. I was surprised to find that that was necessary. I was fairly plainly told by a specialist researcher in the Whips' Office that that proved that I knew nothing about the condition of refugees in refugee camps in Equatorial Guinea. I took the point and accepted the instruction.
	However, I do think that one's citizenship and one's name are equally part of one's identity. To be deprived of one may well create the same sort of shock as being deprived of the other. That is the shock that I felt when I first saw this provision. But I also think that the Government need to think a little further than they have done about what they are doing when they deprive people of citizenship. There has not been a sustained consideration of the meaning of citizenship, so far as I know, since 1603-08, at the time of the Union of the Crowns of England and Scotland, when the question arose as to how far that union created a common citizenship.
	It may surprise the Government that they are not the inventors of the notion that there is a link between rights and responsibilities, although it has not always been interpreted in precisely the way the Government now interpret it. On that occasion, it was interpreted in the same way by the King, the judges and the best parliamentary lawyers. They thought that the responsibility that closed up the whole arch of government was people's allegiance to their sovereign, which arose from their citizenship. In return for that allegiance, they had a right to protection from their sovereign. That link between allegiance and protection was absolutely fundamental to political thinking.
	If one deprives someone of their citizenship, one deprives them of that which is the ground of their allegiance. That seems to be a rather dangerous thing to do. Equally, if one deprives people of that protection, one deprives them of the reasons for their allegiance. I know that the law retains the power to punish foreign nationals for crimes committed in this country, but such obedience as follows from that rests only on fear rather than on a sense of moral obligation. That sense of moral obligation results from citizenship. It is taking that away from people that seems extremely dangerous.
	This is a week in which Al'Qaeda has once and perhaps twice reminded us that it has not gone out of business. To tell people in that situation that they no longer have a moral obligation to obey their Government does not seem very clever.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the Bill rightly excludes from the ambit of its power cases where it would render a British citizen stateless. However, the mere possession of a second nationality is not an adequate protection. There are, after all, people who were born in the United Kingdom, who are United Kingdom citizens by birth, but who hold a dual nationality, perhaps because their parents, at the time of their birth, were foreign citizens who had settled here in the UK but had not yet acquired British nationality. Those people may never even have set foot in the country of their second nationality, they may not speak its language, nor have any practical connections with it. Surely it would be wrong to make it possible to deprive those people of the citizenship of the United Kingdom and the rights of abode and entry that go with it.
	The Bill extends the existing powers relating to UK nationals by naturalisation to United Kingdom citizens by birth. In its memorandum to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Home Office justified that by saying that it ended discrimination in the removal of citizenship between those who are citizens by naturalisation and those who are citizens by birth. In fact, it simply creates a new form of discrimination between British citizens by birth who hold no other citizenship and British citizens by birth who happen to hold the nationality of a second country as well, maybe by birth, maybe by subsequent acquisition. That discrimination is no more justified than the discrimination that it replaces.
	The Joint Committee's report makes clear that there has been wide criticism of the subjective nature of the Home Secretary's decision. It is a matter of his opinion. We are dealing with an exceptional and draconian power. Surely the burden should be on the Home Secretary to show that there are reasonable grounds for his decision. As it is, he needs only to satisfy what is known as the Wednesbury test to show that his decision cannot be said to be so unreasonable that no Home Secretary properly acting could have taken it. That is far too high a test. I would go beyond saying that the Home Secretary should be required to show reasonable grounds. If the power exists, it is such a severe and exceptional one that any decision to remove should not be for the Home Secretary, but should be taken by a court on the application of the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary cannot sentence people in this country to prison. He cannot extradite anybody who is lawfully in the United Kingdom. Those are decisions for the courts. Any removal of citizenship—if it is justified at all—should be a matter for decision by the courts.
	Removal of citizenship does not have important immediate effects in itself. However, it makes it possible subsequently to remove or exclude the former citizen from the United Kingdom. One has to ask why, if at all, that is necessary. We can try people in the courts of the United Kingdom if they have committed an offence. If there is no evidence of an offence committed here, what is the justification for the removal of citizenship or for subsequent deportation?
	As my noble friend Lord Dholakia has said, this power has been exercised once in the past 54 years. The power appears originally to have been introduced in 1914 as a response to the outbreak of the First World War—a time of anti-German hysteria that seems to have led to legislation to make it possible to deprive naturalised Britons of German origin of their citizenship. That is not a happy origin for this power.
	We now have strengthened anti-terrorist laws that have made it easier to prosecute people in this country for terrorist offences committed here or sometimes abroad. There is no reason to believe that removal of citizenship for reasons other than fraud in obtaining it is a necessary power. It is equivalent to a penalty for a serious criminal offence. As I have said, if it is to be done at all, it should be done not by the fiat of the Home Secretary, but by a proper judicial process.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, our Amendment No. 7 is also in this group, which relates to Clause 4, entitled, "Deprivation of citizenship". Clause 4(2) says:
	"The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of—
	(a) the United Kingdom, or (b) a British overseas territory".
	Subsection (4) qualifies that by adding that citizenship cannot be so deprived if it would render the citizen stateless.
	Our amendment would add to that qualification,
	"or if the seriously prejudicial conduct in question constitutes an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000 (c.11), the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c.24) or general criminal law".
	We have tabled the amendment because, under the clause, the Secretary of State can override any single stipulation of criminal law in the land by this massive discretionary power, which depends solely on his subjective judgment. What counts is whether the Secretary of State is satisfied. The provisions for appeal against the Secretary of State's decision are, moreover, extremely circumscribed.
	What is the Government's case for claiming this remarkable and unprecedented power to deprive a person born in this country of his or her citizenship, in the circumstances set out in Clause 4? In Standing Committee in another place the then Minister, Miss Angela Eagle referred to,
	"the serious nature of the things that new Section 40A suggests would have to be proved against a person before they were deprived".
	I take nothing away from Miss Eagle's sincerity in making that case, but there is nothing about proof in Clause 4; the judgment of the Secretary of State is a subjective judgment. The Secretary of State is not required to obey any of the disciplines of the criminal law of the land.
	Miss Eagle continued:
	"They are not small acts or issues of no consequence, but involve serious issues prejudicial to the vital interests of this country. They are not things that one can do by accident one weekend. ... what we have in new section 40A is a power to deprive people of their nationality, in certain circumstances, if they have behaved in ways that amount to treason, problems for national security or interfering with the vital interest of this country. They are not trivial courses of conduct".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 30/4/02; col. 60.]
	It is reasonable for your Lordships to conclude that if a person has committed treason, or an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 or perhaps the Official Secrets Act, their behaviour is also capable of falling within the provisions of the new section. Why should such a person not be prosecuted in the normal way in our criminal courts instead? Why on earth should the Secretary of State be given this discretion to pick somebody out of the normal judicial process and deal with him by his own subjective judgment.
	Again in another place, Miss Eagle referred to war criminals as a category of person whom we would wish to deprive of citizenship—if they had it—using these new powers. Does that mean that the Government will, in future, consider deprivation of citizenship under Clause 4 as an alternative to prosecuting war criminals by due process?
	The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, made an intriguing comment in Committee on 8th July. He said:
	"We do not consider that deprivation of citizenship should in future be applied as a penalty for acts of a general criminal nature".—[Official Report, 8/7/02; col. 503.]
	What then do the Government envisage as a response to acts of the most serious criminal nature against the state, such as those that I have already outlined?
	Later in that debate I asked the noble Lord to outline the circumstances in which he foresaw the discretion of the Secretary of State being exercised. He replied:
	"One circumstance would be where a British citizen, either by himself or in concert with others, had taken actions against the interests of the British state and its citizens in ways that were clear and blatant while not resident in the United Kingdom. In that situation, I cannot see that the British criminal law could be used against them if their acts were committed abroad, even if their acts were against the interests of the British state from abroad".—[Official Report, 8/7/02; col. 511.]
	Surely, however, the Government are at perfect liberty in such a case to apply for the extradition of that person with a view to prosecuting him or her in our own courts in the United Kingdom.
	I hope that the Minister will at least be able to reassure noble Lords—indeed, to undertake—that the proposals in this clause will not be used so as to evade the obligation to prosecute terrorists and others who commit serious crimes against the United Kingdom under any of our criminal laws.
	I conclude with this point. Clause 4 must be against the rules of comity in international law. If we identify someone as a person proposing to commit a serious terrorist offence, for example, surely the obligation is on us to deal with that person. If we simply deport him, we shall be handing on—in my submission, irresponsibly—this terrorist problem to another state which may not have the same capability of dealing with it as we do. It cannot be a proper response to the terrorist threat to refuse to deal with it ourselves if the act involved occurs in our jurisdiction or in another jurisdiction from which we can gain extradition. That would be irresponsible of us.
	I therefore hope that, during the Summer Recess, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has had time to reflect on this vital matter, so that he can—as I am sure he is about to—tell us that the Government have thought again about this clause and met the criticisms from both the Liberal Benches and our own.

Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lords, I support the arguments which have been used in favour of Amendment No. 5. There also seems to me to be one very powerful but secondary argument—the issue of whether a person's access to a second citizenship is a random and arbitrary one. Dual citizenship depends on the various legislation of every other country in the world. Some people have it purely by accident. Some people, such as myself, do not have it equally by accident.
	I happen to be in a position which gives me a certain understanding of the arbitrariness of this. Were I six years younger, or had my parents not been married at the time that I was born, I should be a dual citizen of the United States. Owing to my age and the fact that they were married, I am not entitled to American citizenship. So people who will be excluded from the effect of this clause will be excluded on an entirely arbitrary and random basis. There is no common rule running through it which says that there is a relationship between their connection with this country and whether they may or may not have a second citizenship.
	That is the minor matter. Although it is a pretty important argument and one with which I entirely agree, it is not as important as the quite extraordinary subsection (2) which we have in front of us. It states:
	"The Secretary of State may by order".
	It is giving power to the Secretary of State to create a new crime. Although the crime is punishable by only one penalty, the removal of citizenship, it is nevertheless a crime and something that the law will punish.
	I cannot recall an occasion since the 17th century in which Secretaries of State have been given this power with so little limitation. It is exercisable without evidence of the crime being produced. There is no requirement that there should be evidence of this crime, whatever the crime may be. It is not tried. It is not taken before the courts although there would undoubtedly be an appeal beyond the appeal provided for in another clause.
	How is the crime defined? It is,
	"anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of ... the United Kingdom".
	What precision is there in the words "anything seriously prejudicial"? How would any judge be able to interpret "anything"? It is the widest word that could possibly be used. I might blow my nose and the Secretary of State might regard that as seriously prejudicial to the interests of the United Kingdom, particularly if I had a cold and it was about to spread among this body. That would indeed be seriously prejudicial to the interests of the United Kingdom. "Seriously" is a qualifying word on which it is impossible to put any precise meaning.
	"Prejudicial" merely means that the Secretary of State thinks that it is not in the interests of the United Kingdom. There are some who think that Euroscepticism, which is rife in this House and in Parliament generally, is prejudicial to the interests of the United Kingdom because we ought to join the single European currency. Are all Eurosceptics with another citizenship to have their United Kingdom citizenship removed? On the face of it, the idea is absurd. An absurdity of this degree is also a manifest and intolerable injustice.
	I hope that this amendment will be pressed to a Division if the Government continue to be obstinate. I am not myself prepared to support any Secretary of State having power given to him to create a crime on an arbitrary basis.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, this country has a long tradition, shared with others such as France, Spain and the United States, of providing in its law for deprivation of citizenship as a sanction against acts of treason and subversion. Ever since the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 our law has made provision for citizenship conferred by administrative grant to be withdrawn where the person concerned is found subsequently to have harmed, or posed a threat to, vital state interests.
	In the current legislation, such actions are expressed in terms of disloyalty or disaffection towards the Crown, or as unlawful trade or communication with an enemy in time of war. The terminology may now seem a little dated, and the European Convention on Nationality sets out a better and more modern formulation.
	The Government believe that this power should be retained. In our view, deprivation is a sanction which should be available as part of a potential raft of measures that can be taken against those who act in a way that is seriously prejudicial to our vital interests. We are not content to leave this entirely to the criminal law.
	I wish to emphasise, however, that we regard deprivation of citizenship as a very serious step to be contemplated only in the most flagrant cases of deception or disloyalty. It would be reserved, as it has been in the past, for serious cases in which the individual's actions were totally incompatible with the holding of British nationality. An analysis of its use in this country throughout the period since the Second World War shows that it has been similarly regarded by both Conservative and Labour governments. Except in one respect, to which I shall return, this is not a new measure. Moreover, the powers themselves are not new—they have been in statute for some time—and, although they have been used sparingly, they have been used.
	I wish to emphasise also that this action would be taken only where, as has been said, a person is a dual national and would not, therefore, be made stateless as a result of the deprivation.
	The purpose—which I think is apparent to the House, in the strange times in which we find ourselves—is, first, to express public abhorrence at such treasonable conduct and to demonstrate that the disloyalty shown is incompatible with being regarded as a member of the British family. Examples might be where British citizens engage in espionage against the United Kingdom or fight for an enemy against British or allied forces.
	Secondly, the purpose is to afford a higher level of protection to the public. Deprivation has, of necessity, to have practical consequences for the person concerned, such that he is made aware of the abhorrence with which his conduct is regarded and is prevented or deterred from engaging in similar conduct in the future.
	Thus, removal of British citizenship will result in the inability of the person concerned to hold a British passport. Deprivation may also pave the way for removal from the UK. That is not an inevitable consequence but it is something which may flow from the removal of British citizenship and with it the right of abode in the United Kingdom. Therefore, as is clear, there are two potential sanctions that can flow from the deprivation of citizenship: loss of passport and deportation from the United Kingdom. Loss of British citizenship means that the person concerned becomes subject to immigration control and requires leave from the Secretary of State to remain in the United Kingdom.
	We do not accept the argument that we should always keep the people concerned within our shores. In order to deprive a person of their British citizenship for seriously prejudicial conduct they must have another nationality. We see no reason why we should allow such persons to operate within the freedom provided by the United Kingdom when they have another citizenship or nationality to call upon. I shall come later to the points raised in debate. We are, of course, still subject to all our international obligations under the ECHR and 1951 United Nations Convention and we would respect those in reaching any decision about removal as distinct from deprivation.
	We acknowledge that for most, if not all, actions that would give rise to liability to deprivation of citizenship, there is provision in the criminal law for the application of a particular sanction. However, this country has a tradition of providing in its law for deprivation of citizenship as an additional sanction against acts of treason and subversion, and has had that power for almost a century. We see no good reason for removing it. I also point out that it is not within the remit of the Secretary of State to bring criminal prosecutions for terrorist offences. We wish to retain the power of the Secretary of State to deprive regardless of what decision the Director of Public Prosecutions makes about the merits of a criminal prosecution. In some cases there will be a determination as to criminal liability before a decision to deprive is made. For example, under similar provisions in the British Nationality Act 1948 Klaus Fuchs and Nicholas Prager were both deprived of their citizenship after they had been convicted of offences under the Official Secrets Act.
	On the other hand, we do not believe that liability to deprivation should arise only following a conviction. For example, there may be situations where the evidence of seriously prejudicial conduct would not be admissible in criminal proceedings. The protection of "vital interests" which the deprivation provisions would allow would extend wider than that afforded by the criminal law.
	I turn now to some of the important points raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, argued that it was a sweeping new power. I hope that I have explained that it is not so except in the respect that it now puts all citizens on an equal basis. We believe that that is right. We believe that it is consistent with our approach to citizenship—an approach which I had hoped the House broadly supported—namely, that it is an extremely important privilege and it is one that should be respected without discrimination as to the route by which people had received citizenship. In other words, receiving citizenship through naturalisation should not ever be seen as a second-class status compared with natural born status.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his thoughtful and traditional way almost argued that there was doubt as to whether we should ever deprive someone of citizenship. He did not go quite that far but that was the thrust of his case. That is a perfectly legitimate argument that one can make. Unfortunately, as he will understand, it is not one that the Government agree with or share, but it is clearly an argument that is open to be made by Members of this House.

Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister just now described citizenship as a privilege. For those born here it is a right and the link with responsibilities is with the Crown's responsibilities to discharge its responsibility to protect them.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall discuss the responsibility of the Crown to act appropriately shortly when I refer to the exercise by the Secretary of State of his present powers and his future powers.
	The power we are discussing has not been used only once in 54 years. The last occasion it was used was in 1973 and 10 deprivation orders have been made since 1948. However, I do not want to bandy detailed statistics with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. The noble Lord also asked quite rightly about retrospection. That is not the effect of new Section 40. The new powers to deprive British nationals by birth would not apply to acts done before commencement.
	I turn to the questions and challenges posed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I refer to the issue of dual or single nationality. The argument as I hear it is that because one cannot enforce by extradition the deprivation of citizenship against everyone because only some have a single nationality, one should not exercise it at all. I understand the argument but I do not concur with it because the fact that we cannot necessarily convict everyone of every offence that has been committed does not mean that we are not right to take action against those whom we can so act against, and so we should do.
	The arbitrary nature of the Home Secretary's power has also been referred to. Again, it is right that these issues are tested and challenged. The powers are not new; they have been on the statute since 1980. It is entirely appropriate that the Secretary of State should be able to act on his view that a particular set of circumstances amounts to conduct seriously prejudicial to vital interests.
	In matters relating to national security the Court of Appeal, endorsed by the House of Lords, has judged that the Secretary of State is undoubtedly in the best position to judge what national security requires. But clearly that would be abhorrent if there was not a right of challenge against it. There is a right of challenge against it to ensure that a Secretary of State is not able to act arbitrarily. First, the Secretary of State is compelled by new Section 40(5)(b)—a new provision—to give written reasons for the intended deprivation order which we think is in itself meritorious. Secondly, a person against whom it was proposed to make a deprivation order would be free on appeal to raise any issue bearing on either the legality or the merits of the decision. I rarely like to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, but I think that the scope of challenge is wide rather than narrow, as he suggested.
	The Secretary of State would therefore be prevented from making a deprivation order until such time as the appeal had been finally determined or, if there was no appeal, until such time as the deadline for bringing an appeal had passed.
	I shall not go into the detail of extraterritoriality, which is a complex issue. It is certainly clear that in some cases we could not extradite for an act of treason committed abroad as there is no extradition agreement with some countries. Therefore, we would not be able to bring those people home and make them feel the weight of the criminal law. The law on extraterritoriality is itself complex. It is not in our view totally clear that in all cases an extraterritorial act of treason could be prosecuted in this country even were we in a position to be able to extradite.
	However, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised a particularly important point about whether the Government would use such a power to avoid prosecutions under the Acts he mentioned. I am happy to give a categorical assurance that if we, or rather—I must qualify that—the Director of Public Prosecutions thinks there is evidence, the state would hope that prosecutions would proceed in all such circumstances.
	For those reasons I say in conclusion that it is not a new power. It seeks to treat all British citizens equally. It will be used with considerable circumspection, as has been the case in the past. There is a very extensive right of challenge. But we do not believe in these times that it would be healthy to give a signal to British citizens of whatever type that under no circumstances in practice would there be this sanction which has been with us for nearly a century.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. However, he has still not satisfied this side of the House. I am grateful to noble Lords, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Rees-Mogg and Lord Kingsland, for their support. There are some important issues. I know of no country—unless the Minister does—that deprives one of its citizens of his citizenship. We intend therefore, to have one more bite at this cherry at Third Reading. We shall certainly come back to this issue. If we are not satisfied with discussions between now and then, I tell the Minister now that we shall certainly seek the opinion of the House at that stage. However, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 4, leave out line 1 and insert—
	"(c) otherwise in the public interest."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, on a happier note, or a less troublesome note, I am pleased to signal that in Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—who is not in his place today, which is a shame—made an eloquent speech about his worry about the use of the phrase, "of a political kind". In short, I made the response that Minister's do in those circumstances. However, the Government have used the summer to look at it in more detail.
	The Government believe that it is possible to find alternative wording which I believe achieves what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, was seeking. Unless your Lordships particularly want me to do so, I shall not go into the technical detail of why we put our amendment rather than simply accepting that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. In practice, we believe that it does effect exactly his wish, without a number of disadvantages. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his contribution to the Bill in that respect, as in others. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I rise to say that I had a conversation with my noble friend a short while ago. He expressed his gratitude that the Government had reflected during the summer and returned with this amendment, which he fully supports, as do I.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 4, line 35, at end insert—
	"( ) In exercising a power under section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61) after the commencement of subsection (1) above the Secretary of State may have regard to anything which—
	(a) occurred before commencement, and
	(b) he could have relied on (whether on its own or with other matters) in making an order under section 40 before commencement."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, ever since the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, our law has made provision for citizenship conferred by administrative grant to be withdrawn where the person concerned is found subsequently to have harmed, or posed a threat to, vital interests, as we recently discussed.
	In the Bill, such actions are expressed in terms of disloyalty or disaffection towards the Crown, or as unlawful trade or communication with an enemy in time of war. We have proposed that those grounds should be replaced by those set out in Clause 4(1).
	The amendment would simply make it clear that in deciding whether there were grounds for deprivation of citizenship under the new Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981, the Secretary of State would be entitled to have regard to events occurring before commencement of that section if those events would have justified deprivation under existing Section 40 of the 1981 Act.
	Therefore, for example, an act by a naturalised citizen which amounted to disloyalty or disaffection towards Her Majesty for the purposes of existing Section 40(3)(a) of the 1981 Act might, if it had not been by then discovered and acted upon, justify the making of a deprivation order under Section 40(2) of the Act.
	I emphasise that the amendment is not seeking to give retrospective effect to any of the new powers in Clause 4 of the Act. Rather, that it will preserve the ability to deprive a naturalised or registered citizen in reliance on the conduct that occurred prior to the commencement of the section, provided that the act that gives rise to the current liability would, if done after commencement, justify deprivation under the new provisions. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Filkin: moved Amendment No. 10:
	After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
	"BRITISH CITIZENSHIP: REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN PERSONS WITHOUT OTHER CITIZENSHIP
	(1) T he following shall be inserted after section 4A of the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61) (registration as British citizen)—
	"4B ACQUISITION BY REGISTRATION: CERTAIN PERSONS WITHOUT OTHER CITIZENSHIP
	(1) This section applies to a person who has the status of—
	(a) British Overseas citizen,
	(b) British subject under this Act, or
	(c) British protected person.
	(2) A person to whom this section applies shall be entitled to be registered as a British citizen if—
	(a) he applies for registration under this section,
	(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person does not have, apart from the status mentioned in subsection (1), any citizenship or nationality, and
	(c) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person has not renounced, voluntarily relinquished or lost through action or inaction any citizenship or nationality."
	(2) In section 14(1) of that Act (meaning of British citizen "by descent"), in paragraph (d) for "section 5" there shall be substituted "section 4B or 5"."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary gave an undertaking in another place to reconsider the position of British overseas citizens who have no other nationality. As matters stand, those citizens have no right of abode, either in this country or elsewhere.
	The Home Secretary stated the Government's view that we have a moral obligation to them of long standing and that the present unsatisfactory situation represented unfinished business. We have since concluded that a similar obligation is owed to British subjects and to British protected persons without other nationalities.
	British overseas citizenship and the statuses of British subjects and British protected persons derive, in the main, from a personal or ancestral connection with a former British colony, or with a foreign place which was at one time under British jurisdiction. Generally speaking, the holders of those statuses failed to qualify for citizenship of a new state at the time of independence and therefore remained British.
	The precise number of people in those categories has been difficult to pin down. In 1980, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office suggested in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee that about 1.5 million people would become British overseas citizens under the 1981 Act, of whom approximately 1.3 million people would have another—usually Malaysian—citizenship.
	We estimate that there are now about 35,000 British overseas citizens and about 10,000 British subjects and British protected persons who have no other citizenship. However, a wide margin of error must be allowed for those figures. They are based largely on personal contact with our overseas Commissions in the course of applications for passports and other consular services. Undoubtedly, there will be other people who have not availed themselves of those services.
	The amendments which we now propose will provide British overseas citizens, British subjects and British protected persons having no other nationality, with an entitlement to acquire, on application, and subject to some further requirements—which I shall presently explain—British citizenship.
	In doing so, they would also acquire automatically a right of abode here. In other words, they would no longer be subject to United Kingdom immigration controls, but could come and go at will subject to the usual requirements for proof of right of entry on arrival. They would additionally, as EU citizens under the Treaty of Rome, acquire the right of free movement under the treaty.
	The requirements for acquisition of British citizenship under the new clause are as follows. First, the applicant must be a British overseas citizen, a British subject or a British protected person. Secondly, the applicant must have no other nationality or citizenship on the date of application. Thirdly, the applicant should not previously have given up an alternative nationality or citizenship, whether through action or inaction on his part.
	The latter requirement would exclude those who had lost another nationality through failure to take the steps prescribed by the law of that country for its retention beyond a certain date, as well as those who had lost another nationality as a result of some positive act on their part—such as the making of a declaration of renunciation. Such countries are tolerant of dual nationality in minors but require that on attaining the age of majority, the person must not only renounce their citizenship but also make a declaration of intention as to future residence, and/or take an oath of allegiance.
	Therefore, we do not consider it appropriate to extend an entitlement to British citizenship to those who, by their actions or inaction, have given up another nationality, and one assumes the right to reside permanently in the country of that nationality.
	The Secretary of State must be satisfied that the applicant has no other nationality or citizenship and has not given up another nationality or citizenship. Our experience in implementing the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990 suggests that there is endless scope for argument about that. Therefore, the intention is that in most cases the applicant will be required to produce a statement from both the authorities of the country of his birth and those of the countries in which his parents were born, if different, confirming the lack of an alternative nationality or citizenship, and the reasons for any historical loss of such citizenship.
	The amendment proposes that those registered as British citizens, under the new provision would be British citizens "by descent" for the purposes of the British Nationality Act 1981. As such, they would be subject to the restrictions imposed by that Act on the ability of British citizens "by descent" to transmit their citizenship to a further generation born outside the United Kingdom. That would be consistent with their present position whereby British overseas citizenship and the status of British subject and the British protected person are usually non-transmissible.
	Any children born in the United Kingdom following their parents' registration as British citizens would, of course, acquire British citizenship automatically.
	For those reasons, the Government hope that your Lordships welcome this further movement prompted, in part, by representations that were made to us. I invite the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Avebury, if they are so minded, to withdraw their amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 10, Amendment No. 11:
	Line 19, leave out "or inaction"

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. We are delighted with Amendment No. 10. There is concern about one part of its wording; namely, line 19, and we propose to leave out "or inaction".
	We welcome the fact that the aim is to ensure that persons who have no other nationality but that of British overseas citizens, British protected persons or British subjects, are not prevented from registering as British citizens simply because they failed to take a step that would have procured another nationality for them.
	In July the Minister, Beverley Hughes, gave a commitment to Fiona Mactaggart MP to allow British overseas citizens with no other nationality to register as British citizens. The Minister stated that she was doing that,
	"to address the situation which left those people concerned with no right of abode in any country". [Official Report, Commons, 4/7/02; col. 527W]
	We have support for the amendment from the Immigration Law Practice Association, which has urged us to ensure that the Minister takes into account the fact that the clause should be implemented immediately on commencement of the Bill. It would be useful if the Government could confirm that people who hold any kind of British nationality should be treated with sympathy should they need to apply for settlement in the UK before enactment.
	There is, however, concern that the reference to "inaction" may result in a group of people being left with no right of abode in any country, the very mischief the new clause is designed to avoid. Perhaps I may give an example. Kenyan law does not normally allow dual nationality. Section 12 of the Kenyan constitution provides that people who hold Kenyan and another-country citizenship will lose the Kenyan citizenship if they do not renounce the other citizenship between the ages of 21 and 23. The practice of the British authorities was not to consider special quota voucher applications from such people until those people reached 23, when they would qualify for vouchers if they had not renounced their British status because their Kenyan nationality had automatically been lost. The vouchers allowed people to come to the UK and subsequently to seek British citizenship through naturalisation. The voucher scheme was abolished on 5th March this year.
	Those affected were born in Kenya to a British father after independence on 12th December 1963 but before January 1983 when the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force. They were able to inherit their father's citizenship, renamed British overseas citizenship by the 1981 Act. After 1981, no British overseas citizen could pass on his or her nationality in this way.
	Some young people may have done nothing before reaching the age of 23 because they did not realise that anything needed to be done. Others may have done nothing because they were intending to apply for vouchers when their personal circumstances made it appropriate to do so. They will be left as British overseas citizens, with no right of abode in any country, and no possibility of getting a voucher to come to Britain and subsequently naturalise as British. I hope that the Minister will take that factor into account when considering why we believe the word "inaction" ought to be deleted from the clause. I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his questions. Given that some of the issues are intensely technical, I shall, with his leave and without signalling positively, write to him.
	As regards inaction, if the thrust of his objection is a concern that the exclusion of those who have lost another nationality through inaction cover, for example, all British overseas citizens in Kenya, our view is no. Most of the British overseas citizens in Kenya are not and never have been citizens of Kenya. Accordingly, the possibility of the loss of Kenyan citizenship, whether through action or inaction, does not arise in their case.
	However, a British national who has acquired Kenyan citizenship, whether automatically or by registration or naturalisation, will be subject to the restrictions on dual nationality contained in the legislation of that country. Those include the provision that the person must, on attaining the age of 21, renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and make a declaration of intention regarding future residence and take an oath of allegiance.
	Therefore, inaction will apply only to those born after Kenyan independence in 1963. All citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies born before then will now be either British overseas citizens or Kenyan. They cannot be both and they will have needed to exercise a positive choice.
	The people who come into the inaction category are those who at birth, post-independence, were citizens of the United Kingdom or colonies by descent from the parent and also Kenyan because a parent was born in Kenya. Those people must exercise a choice at the age of 23 because Kenya does not allow adults to hold dual nationality. If a minor who holds both BOC and Kenyan nationality does nothing to consolidate his Kenyan nationality by the age of 22, he then loses it. "Consolidating" is making a declaration of intent to reside in Kenya and reaffirming allegiance to Kenya.
	I hope that that is helpful, if not necessarily completely satisfactory, but I would affirm the point I made earlier that I will write to the noble Lord. That leaves open the possibility of discussions, without wishing to signal that we are necessarily moving on the issue. We would be pleased to go into further detail, if that would help.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and I look forward to his response on the number of detailed points that have been made. If need be, perhaps I may have a bilateral discussion with him on the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 11, as an amendment to Amendment No. 10, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Amendment No. 10 agreed to.
	Clause 14 [Establishment of centres]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 9, line 16, at end insert
	"( ) An accommodation centre shall be established only when the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proposed location is suitable to the needs of the persons to be accommodated therein".

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. We turn to Part 2 of the Bill and to a series of amendments regarding the structure and running of accommodation centres. Amendment No. 12 raises the question of where an accommodation centre should be sited. We believe that it is the key to improving the Government's current proposals.
	I did not move the amendment in Committee because Members had spoken to it during our debates on the size of accommodation centres. Today, however, I have learnt from that experience and therefore I have grouped the amendments to facilitate, I hope, a more concise and rounded debate.
	We on these Benches support the concept of building accommodation centres. After all, the proposal strongly echoes that which we put forward before the previous general election. But of course our welcome is for the concept and not always for the details of the way in which the Government propose that the centres should operate.
	The Government's plans for three—there should be four but one seems to have disappeared—large accommodation centres in rural areas, where the processing of claims will take far too long, will have no chance of solving the problem of clearing up the huge backlog of claims. It would, on the Government's current proposals, take more than 43 years for the new accommodation centres to clear even just that backlog.
	We are now told that as a result of objections from the local communities to the siting, establishment of the accommodation centres is drifting towards 2004. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that local councils have rejected the plans and that the proposals are being put out to public inquiry. I understand that that may not conclude until just prior to next year's local elections. When the centres are established, their whole success will depend upon their ability to meet the diverse cultural, social and language needs of the people to be accommodated in them. We believed that those needs will best be met by putting the accommodation centres close to the communities, which already provide for the needs of those from similar cultures and communities.
	However, the Government have decided not to do that. They want to put the large accommodation centres, each housing about 750 people, in rural areas. We believe that that is wholly inappropriate for all concerned. Indeed, at a conference earlier this year, the Home Secretary acknowledged to the chief executive of the Immigration Advisory Service that placing such centres away from urban areas was likely to lead to isolation and potential institutionalisation, with consequent possible psychiatric difficulties for those who were placed there. Yet still that is what the Home Secretary has decided to do.
	Last month, I visited the proposed site of the accommodation centre at Bicester. That visit convinced me that it is not appropriate to build the large accommodation centre proposed there. It cannot go to meet the needs of those applying for asylum. Indeed, it has far more the feel of a site for a detention centre than an accommodation centre.
	I am grateful to the Minister for enabling, during the summer Recess, plans to be circulated to, I hope, all noble Lords who took part in the debate. They show an outline plan of how the centre might be built and where the buildings might be located. I have to say that "Cell Block H" has little on this one; it does not fill me with great encouragement.
	The site itself is so isolated from community life that it will close down any opportunities for the Government to reconsider which services they should provide within the accommodation centre. I am delighted to see so many right reverend Prelates sitting on the Bishops' Benches this afternoon. If, later today, the Government were persuaded by the noble Lords led by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth that education should be provided off site in mainstream schools, the very location of the new centres currently planned would close down that option.
	Yesterday a briefing meeting was held in the Moses Room by a consortium of those who have great concerns about education. I listened most carefully to the views expressed, some of which I do not agree with. However, throughout the meeting, I was struck by the sincerity, the conviction, and the generosity of spirit that was evident. I took very seriously what was said. Indeed, after listening to those comments, I felt even more strongly that Amendment No. 12 was needed.
	The purpose of Amendment No. 13 is to put on the face of the Bill the requirement that accommodation centres should not house more than 250 asylum seekers at any one time. I have been reasonable in the extreme. On this occasion, on Report, I have given the Secretary of State the opportunity to increase that number by affirmative order if he is able to demonstrate to Parliament the need to do so.
	Many of the expert organisations that have provided briefing on the Bill, such as the Refugee Council, have expressed concern at the proposed size of the centres. They say that the Government's proposals would make them too large to be effective. The Immigration Advisory Service says that it believes that the experience of reception centres in other European countries, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, is that they are more effective if they contain no more than about 200 to 300 people.
	There will undoubtedly be pressures and tensions in a centre that holds as many as 750 people, or anything like that number. I have in mind the pressures that built up at Yarl's Wood. In Committee, we discussed the problems that arose at that centre. The Government said that they would report back to the House the progress of the report covering the rioting that took place. Perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to say what has happened to that report and bring us up to date.
	The smaller the number of people in each centre, the more likely it is that such centres would be efficient, humane, decent, and safe. Local residents would also find the smaller centres easier to cope with and understand. Can the Government confirm that NASS has put out a tender for emergency accommodation using pre-fabricated buildings similar to barges? Can the Minister say whether the Government have properly considered this type of solution for smaller versions of accommodation centres?
	The Minister said in Committee that he would be speaking to the Refugee Council about this matter over the summer months. I have heard one or two little leaked bits of reports on the website over the past few weeks. Can the Minister tell us today the results of that consultation? Further, what will be the size and location of accommodation centres to be established in addition to the three already planned? Will they be completed by the time that the original three large ones should be open?
	We need proof today that the Government will make a real trial of accommodation centres, rather than presenting us with a fait accompli. I believe that putting Amendment No. 12 on the face of the Bill would give us that proof. After all, it would not undermine the Government's plans for faster and fairer processing of claims; it would simply reinforce them. Therefore, I cannot see any reason why the Government should object to this amendment. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: My Lords, we on these Benches are happy to support both amendments. They are good and useful amendments. I have but one reservation; namely, that I wish Amendment No. 12 had not included the words,
	"the Secretary of State is satisfied".
	The Secretary of State is sometimes very easily satisfied, and sometimes satisfied only with very great difficulty. I fear that this case might belong to the first category.
	I remember listening in Committee to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who is not in the Chamber at present. However, I am sure that she will confirm what she said. She observed that the roads in the neighbourhood of Throckmorton are simply incapable of carrying the traffic that a large centre would generate. That is a very material point. Those noble Lords who have found themselves in a hurry on a narrow country road will have some picture in their minds of what sort of confusion may arise. I also understand that the centre is close to a very large rubbish tip. I hope that my noble friend Lord Greaves will say something more in that respect.
	If I know anything about children, they wander about and find things to play with. They pick them up and, if they are young, they put them in their mouths. What might happen to children who wander around a rubbish tip and put things in their mouths is a question that I consider with considerable apprehension. There is also the question of catering, which the Minister made a great deal of in Committee and upon which he made some very welcome remarks. He is clearly envisaging self-catering for asylum seekers, which should mean that they are able to buy food comparable to that available in their own countries. In this sort of situation, and especially as one gets into a greater state of unease, one develops a hankering for familiar food. I do not know what are the chances of buying tropical food in the neighbourhood of Bicester or Pershore; I doubt whether they are considerable—

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords—

Earl Russell: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, has reservations on this point, which I am sure he will state and to which I shall listen with interest.
	The situation gives rise to a question that will emerge during discussions on later amendments; namely, how far asylum seekers in these centres are envisaged as being able to come and go during the day. As we all know—and, indeed, as most of us in this Chamber have said many times—bus services in particularly remote areas leave a great deal to be desired. If there is a flood of, say, 100 people trying to board one local bus, a number of whom will be going to collect benefits, many will not be able to do so. Again, such a situation could give rise to resentment.
	We need to know that all those questions would have been considered in relation to the particular centre concerned before a decision was made to build the centre in that location. There are many more such questions and I could continue for quite some time, but Report is the wrong stage of a Bill to do so. However, turning to Amendment No. 13, we welcome the suggested limit at such centres of 250 people, proposed by my honourable friend Mr Hughes in another place.
	We believe that the group dynamics of any collection of people are heavily influenced by its size. Incidentally, that is one reason why this House functions very much more harmoniously than is sometimes the case in another place. The other place has grown beyond the group dynamics in which real friendship across the community is possible. This House has not done so; and we gain very considerably as a result. With a size of 250, it is possible for people to know each other and to make friends across communities—not, as happens in much larger gatherings, to huddle together in tiny little groups of their own sort of people, which tends to have a divisive effect within centres.
	Fights between, say, Kurds and Algerians in refugee centres have by no means been unknown. Such situations would be much less likely to arise in a smaller centre. The group dynamics of a small centre will be very much happier than those of a large centre. The point is difficult to quantify. The figure of 250 people is not sacred: but the avoidance of massive units is important. The Government make arguments of economy of scale. I remember the latter being made in favour of the first comprehensive schools. At that time comprehensives were built to accommodate 2,000 pupils. Such schools have not been the most successful of our comprehensives. It is a mistake that Whitehall is capable of making too often. I hope that it will not make it this time.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will take very seriously the feeling behind the amendment. First, in terms of the numbers at present being considered, it seems to me that there is a danger of inadvertently creating a hell-hole of a social ghetto. I say that as someone who, for much of his life, has had the privilege of working professionally with humanitarian agencies. I have seen at first hand what can happen when large numbers of insecure people are herded together. I have seen the psychological complications that can follow. I hope therefore that the issue of numbers will be taken seriously by my noble friend. It is terribly important that he explains to the House why the experience of other countries, to which the noble Baroness referred, has been rejected in favour of larger centres.
	The other point I want to raise relates to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said about the social dynamics. People in the centres are people; we must remember that. The implications of living among 749 other people in an institutionalised environment of institutionalised uncertainty are fairly horrific. The more that can be done to humanise such an unfortunate experience—most of us accept that, even if necessary, it is an unfortunate experience—the better.
	I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would agree that it is not simply a case of ensuring that people in the centres are able to move freely in the community outside and in the real world; the ease of access for people from outside to the centres is also important in establishing relationships and in trying to humanise a little more the position of those who find themselves there. For all those reasons, I hope that my noble friend will not simply reject the amendment out of hand.
	I was also present at last night's meeting; it was a telling experience. Those who attended were not just, dare I say, bleeding-heart liberals; they were people involved every day in practical work among those who are in social difficulties and in positions of social deprivation. They speak with the experience of practical engagement. Many of them give their lives—almost literally. When people speak, I wish it could be remembered that such people are giving their lives to work of that kind. Their voices need to be heard. From that standpoint, I hope that my noble friend will treat the points that have been made extremely seriously.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Anelay and ask the Minister whether he will be good enough to spell out clearly and in detail the current position with regard to the siting and building of the early attendance centres intended by the Government. In Committee, the Government confirmed that the building and siting of attendance centres would be subject to the normal planning laws. How many applications for the building of attendance centres have been submitted by the Government: three or four? More particularly, in those applications presumably some indication was given of the size of the centres and of the number of people they would house. Can the Minister tell us the intended number for each attendance centre?
	Secondly, is it correct that all three applications—in England, at least—have been rejected by the local planning authorities? If that is the case, what were the main grounds for their rejection? Was one of the grounds, as has been suggested, that all the applications related to rural areas and that the size of the centres—we are talking about attendance centres for 750 people—was likely to smother the surrounding small rural villages?
	What effect has that now had on the Government's overall programme for building attendance centres? Presumably the Government intend to appeal the refusal of the planning authorities. Have those appeals yet been made and have inspectors yet been appointed? When do the Government hope that the appeals will take place, and when do they expect to hear the result of the appeals? What effect has the refusal of all three applications had on the Government's timetable in this whole area?
	If it is intended that those three applications should relate merely to the first of many attendance centres that will be required, should not the fact that the Government have so far been faced with a blanket refusal on each occasion make them question whether they are asking to build the centres in the right areas and of the right size? Or perhaps they should question the basis of the policy that they have been following.
	I believe that we need to know the answer to those questions. It seems to me that the powerful arguments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the advantages of smaller centres over those proposed by the Government are borne out by the apparent unwillingness of those living in the community to accept attendance centres of the size being suggested.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am a former chairman of the Refugee Council. Like many noble Lords, I am deeply perturbed by the situation which some people—my friends—are prepared to embrace. Quite rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the possibility of people going in and out of the detention centres, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, asked a number of highly relevant questions.
	But I am concerned about people who cannot get out and who must stay inside all the time. Are they expected always to behave as we would like them to do? They will be very frustrated. I am concerned that as many as 750 people should be herded together in the way the Government contend. I do not really care whether or not planning appeals are successful because I do not believe that the Government should have picked upon such an idea. I am deeply concerned that a government which I support have even touched the idea.
	It is not long since my grandparents were refugees. They had many difficulties with which to contend but they never had to contend with such a proposal. I believe that the idea is wholly wrong not only from the point of view of people who regard themselves as Socialists, Liberals or liberal Conservatives; in my view, it is wholly wrong that people should be exposed to this type of difficulty.
	Asylum seekers are not criminals. Some may even be regarded as future citizens of this country. Some have done their best to get here, to rescue themselves and their children. Some may have behaved ignobly, but whatever their reasons I do not believe that anyone should presuppose that they are guilty and that they should be treated like serfs. What is worse is that they are confined to a situation in which they are exposed to rural circumstances only, which makes it virtually impossible for them to receive the kind of advice, concern and treatment to which they are entitled.
	If a Division is called on this point, regretfully I shall have to vote against the Government because I believe that the point of view that is being expressed by them is wholly wrong.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, it is difficult to follow that moving speech by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. It was passionate and from the heart. I support the amendment, especially as it applies to children and their education. One of the most important principles that any democracy should have at the very top of its agenda is attention to the needs of the most vulnerable and dependent in society—children.
	This amendment firmly underlines that principle by seeking to incorporate on the face of the Bill that the needs of asylum seekers should dictate where the proposed accommodation centres be located. Many noble Lords have already mentioned the "No school apartheid" meeting yesterday. That briefing could not have failed to impress on anyone present the deep concern about the Government's plans to segregate asylum seekers in accommodation centres, some of which are very large and often in remote areas, even for those with children.
	Whether it was teachers, parents or asylum seekers themselves who spoke yesterday, the point was made again and again that becoming part of a local school community is beneficial not only to the children concerned, who by definition are often traumatised, and to their parents, but also to the children who already attend the school who learn about other countries, the lives of people living in other countries and their suffering. As one youngster put it, she was the one who had profited because she had gained knowledge from someone who had recently joined the school so that she was able to write a play about the experiences. There was also a robust denial from everyone in the room of the media assertion that local schools were being swamped by an influx of asylum-seeking children.
	No one denies that the substantially increasing numbers of asylum seekers coming into this country is causing problems, nor that those who attempt to come to the UK illegally should not be swiftly returned. Equally, this country has always had, and indeed needed, immigrants, asylum seekers or whatever one calls them. We also have considerable cause to be grateful for the skills, hard work and varied talents that they have brought with them.
	Above all, a nation and a government that set considerable store by their commitment to human rights, and not least stress in the Adoption and Children Bill currently before your Lordships' House, that the overarching principle to be followed will be the child's welfare, should surely be more than willing to welcome, as well as accept, Amendment No. 12 so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and to support many of the speeches made by other Members of the House. Yesterday's meeting was a revealing occasion and helped many of us to take a view on some of the details of the discussion before the House. If we need to have accommodation centres, their size is vital. The small size promoted by the amendment will provide flexibility as to where they are placed, which will have ramifications elsewhere in our discussions this evening. I agree with everything that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has said about the dynamics of size.
	I detect a certain slippage. It should be noted that we are now talking about accommodation centres and not detention centres. I was slightly amused by the expression "the satisfaction of the Secretary of State". Perhaps I may revert to 16th century prose, which I know will delight the noble Earl: there appears to be a movable feast. I support the amendment and hope that the Minister will give it an accepting hearing.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate used the word "slippage" and noted that such centres are now called accommodation centres. "Accommodation" is perhaps a compromise word. It is important to remember that there is a presumption of liberty for immigration detainees. That is enshrined in earlier immigration Acts. Therefore, it is vital that, in considering the location and size of new accommodation centres, we consider how easy it will be for the residents therein to come and go.
	My locus for speaking in this debate is that some 10 years ago I was Minister responsible for immigration at the Home Office. In that time I visited three centres. I am not sure whether we called them "accommodation centres" or "detention centres".

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, detention centres.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, my noble friend reminds me. One was a large centre close to Heathrow, the second was a smaller centre at Ham Common, just outside Richmond and the third was a ship in an east coast harbour. My officials in the immigration and nationality department were rather alarmed when I said that I intended to visit the ship. I believe that they thought I might receive a rather hostile reception. When I walked up the gangplank I was absolutely delighted to be greeted by a loud cheer. However, those on board were watching a Test match and Pakistan had just taken another English wicket! I learned that of the three centres—I am a nautical man—the happiest place was the ship. It was the smallest and there was always something going on. By comparison the large centre close to Heathrow was by far the most inhumane, to use the word that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, used. Therefore, in approaching this problem it is essential that we realise that in the future rich countries like ourselves, France and Germany, will be judged by how we managed to deal with this growing problem of asylum seekers and by how much humanity we showed.
	Of great importance to me is that there is fear in relation to this issue. One has seen that recently between Dover and Calais. But our solutions are simply not to pander to that fear. I believe therefore, as other noble Lords have said, immigration detainees or immigration applicants for asylum should not be isolated in rural areas. That would be totally counterproductive. It would ensure that they do not learn anything about the country into which some of them will eventually be granted indefinite leave to remain.
	What we want is an atmosphere under which some asylum seekers, who are here for weeks or months, will have opportunities to learn about the habits, the ways and the slang of the country in which they may be spending the rest of their lives. Ideally they will have an opportunity to visit cafes, supermarkets, bars and the local football ground in order to get a feeling of what Britain is like.
	On that basis the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Anelay is along the right lines. I support her amendments. I might question the figure of 250. I think that perhaps that is a little small but it is very much a step in the right direction.
	My last point is to pick up where I started—on a ship. I hope that the Government will consider very carefully the question of using what is called, I think rather tactfully, "moored coastal accommodation". Its great advantage as the Immigration Advisory Service, among others, has said to me, is that its size can be accommodated to the harbour where the boat is to be moored; for example, one obviously can have a larger boat in Felixstowe than in Oban. The construction therein—whether large rooms, small rooms and big or small gangways—can be exactly suited to the required circumstances.
	Furthermore—I have to say this—floating coastal accommodation is very cheap to build. One figure mentioned is that the cost of it could well be as low as £5 per head per day. I suspect that that is a great deal less than the grand and large accommodation centres currently proposed by the Government. They are so grand and so large that in my judgment they will never get built. I believe that the cost of them will be too great and they will get permanently postponed. As an alternative I seriously suggest looking at something simpler, more flexible and cheaper to build. In that context, moored coastal accommodation would do very well.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I believe that it would be useful if the House reminded itself of the purpose of the Bill. There are great demands outside these walls that the Government—any government, but it happens to be this one this day—deals effectively and efficiently with demand for asylum. There is no question about that. There are great dangers for any government in not doing that.
	There are newspapers, notably the Daily Mail, that lose no opportunity to stir up animosity and suspicion against those claiming asylum quite properly under the 1951 convention. We are all proud, are we not, to say that this country has a great tradition of giving asylum to those who are in fear of their lives and have to flee their homes and countries. That is true. But, at the same time, as the Second Chamber of Parliament we also have a responsibility to ensure that the arrangements deal effectively, efficiently and fairly with claims for asylum.
	Your Lordships will remember that I have been battering the Government Front Bench about the lack of proper arrangements within the European Union to deal with asylum applications in the first safe country to which those seeking asylum arrive. That is another matter. I am glad to see that some progress at last has been made in that area.
	I return to my starting point: we are debating this issue because the public are not satisfied that the present systems dealing with asylum applications are adequate for the job and the pressures placed on them. That is why accommodation centres are suggested. What are they about?

Earl Russell: My Lords, if we are to be fair to the Daily Mail—and I think we should be—I do not believe it has any a priori commitment to defending arrangements which it knows will not work. I do not see why it should not listen to our debate just as well as anyone else does.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. He has more hope about those who own and edit the Daily Mail than I have. It loses no opportunity to fan up concerns, which even border on the hatred of those who give up their homes and lives to come here and seek sanctuary under that 1951 convention. So I shall not give them that, although the noble Earl might. He is probably more generous of spirit than I am in that regard.
	I was saying that the whole purpose of these accommodation centres is to keep people in one place so that their claim for asylum can be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. There are lessons to be learned from this and perhaps my noble friend the Minister will be able to tell us about the matter. There are experiences from Oakington. I say from memory that about 78 of the Immigration Advisory Service's staff are at the Oakington centre every day of the week, and every week, to help those who are there to understand how to make their claims. They assist them in making their claims and take them right through the process. Also they give them advice on the back of their professionalism and experience as to the merit of their claim for asylum.
	At Oakington legal advice is provided on site. It is easily accessible and in languages which those claiming asylum speak. There are some lessons to be learned there. I do not believe that anyone in your Lordships' House would disagree with that. The essential point about trying more effectively and efficiently to deal with asylum applications is having relevant professional legal advice easily available to those making asylum claims.
	That must be the overriding argument for accommodation centres. They are not to lock people in. The Government have made clear in these proposals that they are not detention centres; they are accommodation centres. Quite properly, there are residential requirements imposed on those using them because if there are a whole range of services, including legal advice, one would want to make sure that the people are on site for the provision of that legal advice.
	I turn to the question of size. It is perverse. One can take a view. No one knows the ideal size. I have to say that to your Lordships. I do not think that anyone will quarrel with me about that. One can take a view that 750 is too many or 250 is about the right size. I do not know the answer. Neither do the Government. What they say in the proposal is, "Let's try this on a trial basis". I have to say to the noble Baroness on the Front Bench opposite: if these centres are set up with a maximum capacity of 750 people, I doubt that there will be many days of the year when 750 are in them. That is not the intention. The intention is that the people will be there for a matter of weeks. We can argue whether it is 10, 12 or 14 weeks.
	Again, I say to your Lordships that one of the purposes of the Bill is to make this whole asylum system much more efficient. That means not throwing fairness out of the window; it means cutting down on the time that it takes to deal with asylum applications. That must be in everyone's interest. I do not think that anyone can argue about that. Nothing is to be gained by asylum applicants or anyone else by spinning out that process.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I read with care our previous debate on this matter. As I understood it, the Government accepted that it is likely to take more than two months for asylum applications to be processed and that appeals may then take four months. They did not expect that to change in the near future. But I know that the noble Lord has great experience in this area and I look forward to his clarifying that point.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for making that point. I will say now to the Minister that my support for the principle of the accommodation centres is founded on the belief that the system must be more efficient in the time taken to deal with applications. We must get better at that. One way to do so is through accommodation centres, where advice is available—provided either by non-governmental authorities or by the Legal Services Commission, through local qualified solicitors—that can speed up the process.
	I do not want fairness thrown out of the window in dealing with applications and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us a little more about the time-scale envisaged. Let me put it this way to your Lordships: there are those who accuse the Government of being target-mad—setting a target for everything in sight. Even if that is not the case, it may be appropriate to set firmer targets for the Immigration Advisory Service on time taken to deal with asylum applications.
	On size, I have already said that it is unlikely that the centres will be crammed—that, whatever their capacity, whether 250 or 750, they will be full every day of the year. The Government have fairly stated—it is important to recognise this—that their intention is to set them up on a trial basis. It must be acknowledged that if the range of facilities envisaged by the Government—education for children, healthcare, purposeful activities, facilities for religious observance and so on—are to be provided, a certain scale is involved. So to the extent that the issue of size is a matter of trial against the services to be provided on-site, I am prepared to let that trial proceed—from the opposite perspective to that of the noble Baroness.
	Turning to my last point, I should immediately apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and confess that I brought old habits from the other end of the Corridor when I interrupted him from a sedentary position, but I want to make a serious point about the provision of foodstuffs.
	It is obviously envisaged that shops will be provided on accommodation centre sites. I do not say this facetiously, but with regard to the proposed Throckmorton site, for example, plenty of shopkeepers in the great city of Birmingham are used to providing the foodstuff needs of ethnic communities. I can tell the noble Earl and the rest of your Lordships that I dare say that even now, down the Alum Rock Road, where shopkeepers have been doing that for years, there will be those thinking, "I wonder when the centre at Throckmorton will open because I want to put in for a licence to run the shop." I do not say that in any facetious manner, because I believe—as, I am sure, does the noble Lord, for the reasons that he gave and others—that it is important that the foodstuffs to which asylum seekers have been used are provided on-site in their accommodation centres. I do not doubt for a minute that, if only for vulgar commercial reasons, they will be.
	I do not want to touch on the point about education, because separate amendments have been tabled on that, but I repeat to your Lordships that we should not lose sight of the purpose of the accommodation centres and the responsibility on all of us in Parliament to respond to concern about the need to deal more efficiently and effectively with asylum applicants.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, to respond to the noble Lord, the argument is not about accommodation centres; it is about the practicalities of the particular accommodation centres proposed by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, talked about bleeding heart Liberals. I can bleed my heart with the best of them if I want to, and I confess to being a Liberal. But on issues such as this, I try to be hard-headed and consider the practicalities of particular proposals.
	With that in mind, a couple of weeks ago, I went to look at Throckmorton—the county councillor there is Liz Tucker, an old political colleague of mine—and, in doing so, I tried to put aside my preconceptions on the matter and everything that I had heard and consider it as if I were determining a planning application to see what was the likely impact on the ground. I must say that it would be difficult to find a less suitable proposal—to use the words of Amendment No. 12, a proposal that is less
	"suitable to the needs of the persons to be accommodated therein."
	I was really quite shocked by what I found. Throckmorton itself is really a small hamlet of 120 people with no facilities. It is surrounded by a ring of villages: Bishampton, Pinvin, Wyre Piddle—names that noble Lords may think amusing; but the people there are not terribly amused at the prospect of those small villages surrounding an accommodation centre for 750 people from a completely different part of the world who do not know where they are, who do not know the area and who have nothing to do outside the accommodation centre other than wander up and down the country lanes. Those villages are, so far as I could see, mainly commuter villages in which, during the day, few people can be seen around.
	The proposed centre is three miles from Pershore, which is a small market town of about 3,000 people. I asked some people in Pershore, "Isn't it fair that you should take a fair share of the burden, if there is a burden of looking after asylum seekers while they are here?" They said yes, because the sort of people that I talk to are reasonable people, especially if they are Liberals. But they said, "What is the appropriate size?" I said that if the proposal were for 10, 20 or even 30 people to come to the area, I would come to defend it, just as I have defended the needs of asylum seekers in the part of Lancashire in which I live, where we have had dispersal. But 750—including a substantial number of young, single men, who no doubt would walk into the town because it is the most interesting place, insofar as anywhere is interesting to young men in such an area?
	I asked, "What is it like? Do you have problems here?" They said, "The main problem here is that there is nothing much for our local young men to do. On Friday and Saturday nights, there is bother on the streets". One has only to put two and two together—or one group of young men from the asylum centre and one group of local young men together—to see that people are concerned that there would be bother.
	But my main concern when considering the proposed site is the interests of those who would be living there. As my noble friend Lord Russell said, there is a huge tip there. It is the biggest that I have ever seen—no doubt there are bigger—that is not filling up a huge hole in the ground. Instead, it is building a new hill—because that is what we have to do nowadays in terms of landfill. I stood on the corner of the tip nearest to the proposed site, which is half a field away. Half a field the other way, the machinery was still landscaping the site on which the carcasses of thousands of cattle were buried during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. That will all be flattened out and landscaped, and, no doubt, it will be looked after nicely. On the other side, half a field away, is the proposed site of the accommodation centre. My noble friend explained the difficulties that there will be. There is an open tip, with open access to it, and there is no doubt that that will cause huge danger. Why on Earth are we saying to people who have come halfway across the world to seek asylum that they will be accommodated next to a huge refuse tip? That is the wrong message in every way.
	On the other side of the centre—next to it—there was what appeared to be a radar research outfit in the old hangar buildings on the old airfield. It has big signs on it saying that the site is covered by the Official Secrets Act and suggesting that anyone who gets in or tries to get in will be shot or whatever it is that they do to them. No doubt, some asylum seekers will be used to that sort of thing and might be able to cope, but I do not know that the children will be able to read the notices about the Official Secrets Act. Having seen that site—but not the other two—I came away convinced that the Government's chances of getting planning permission, if the system works properly, are nil. For that reason alone, we ought to consider proposals for smaller sites in more sensible areas.
	In Committee, the Minister said the urban areas of this country had taken more than their fair share of the burden and that it was time for the rest of the country to take its share. I do not disagree with that. However, we are not talking about the rest of the country taking its share, we are talking about three rural areas with small communities taking a huge share. That is not right.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I had wanted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, but I am glad that I did not, as we have just heard a very interesting speech. However, I shall say to the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, that I accept everything that he said. He is right to say that the Government have an enormous problem and that there is no decrease in the number of people coming here to seek asylum. In fact, the trend is going the other way, and the Government have an urgent duty to find ways of dealing with that situation, while reassuring the public that they can do so, as the noble Lord said.
	At the moment, the plan for trial accommodation centres is being treated by the Government as a way of reassuring the public. That has been happening over the summer. It is helpful to the public to know that the plan exists, and the details of the centres are constantly under discussion, as now. However, there is little mention of the fact that, of the 80,000 applicants for asylum who come in each year plus their dependents, only 5,000 will be dealt with in accommodation centres. That is less than 6 per cent and is a small part of the whole operation. It is none the less important for that that the matter must not be got out of proportion. I may be wrong—my suspicious mind often takes over—but I suspect that the plan is talked about because it is easy to understand and because it is comforting to know that it exists.
	My noble friend asked the Minister to tell us the current situation on planning permission for the centres. Can he also tell me whether the plan to have one in Scotland still exists or has been abandoned, as someone told me yesterday? I would be interested to know, as would the people of Scotland.
	We must get the system right. It is a small operation at the moment, but it may be replicated on an enormous scale if it is a success. It will be expensive, but, if it is a success, it may be the right way. We hope that fewer asylum seekers will come and that the system will play a big part in meeting their needs. However, we must get it right, and the job must be well done. The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns are concerned with doing that.
	At the meeting last night, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth referred and which other noble Lords attended, there was an epic happening. The right reverend Prelate stood up and spoke three sentences, whereupon he was cheered by 86 people—I counted them. That does not happen often to a right reverend Prelate, so I am sure that he enjoyed it.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, unfortunately, it does not.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, at that meeting, as has been said, people who know how such things work and who have worked with such people appeared deeply worried. They simply could not understand how the Home Secretary in a Labour government—a new Labour government—could propose such a policy. They were not representatives of political parties; they were professional people from all sides of the spectrum. It was hugely impressive, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will agree with me. I was moved, and I thought that the meeting was significant.
	The meeting was about schools, but there was also a massive thumbs-down for large accommodation centres. There was no question about that among those 86 people. On the other hand, the public at large feels rather comforted by the idea, and that is the problem with which we must deal. I shall support my noble friend's amendment, if there is a Division; the 86 people at the meeting would have supported it. I do not know who else will support the amendment, but I hope that other noble Lords will.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I shall add a sceptical note to the general unanimity surrounding the amendment. I heard what my noble friend, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, said. The first thing that we want is that the people in the centres should not stay there long. We must create centres that can minimise the time that people spend in them.
	The facilities for processing applications should be the best, and that raises the question of economy of size. If we have people in accommodation designed for groups of 250, the number of translators and immigration officers that we need will treble. We need the same number of such people in a centre, whether there are 250 or 750 people in it. We might need one or two more, but not three times as many.
	People talk as if 750 were a fantastically large number. Citizens of this country would consider a council estate of 750 residents to be a small one. I have great respect for the people who are agitating, and I do not want to be a heartless beast. We want to be nice to asylum seekers, and, if it were left to me, I would admit everybody, without any bar. That is another story. Many people listening to our debate might think that no one had ever lived on a council estate of 750 people.
	That number—750—is also just about the right size for a five-form secondary school. Sometimes, schools can be too small. If there are 250 people, half of whom are schoolchildren, and those 120 young people are distributed between six or seven forms and, perhaps, between one or two schools, their chances of getting beaten up in the playground are higher than if there were more of them. People can find solidarity in numbers. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, is shaking her head; she does not believe that. I was brought up in a crowded household, so I do not think that that is a bad thing.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I was shaking my head—I apologise for doing so from a sedentary position—simply because most people who are familiar with pre-school and primary education will agree that 250 is already a substantial-sized school. A much larger one is indeed likely to have extensive bullying.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I had the experience in Islington of having to amalgamate schools which were too small. I feel that if there are only one or two children of asylum seekers in a school rather than 10, they are likely to get beaten up.
	There are arguments on either side about economies of size. It is not obvious to me that the arguments are all one way. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is not in his place, referred to group dynamics and how our group dynamics are much better than those in another place. But, on paper, our size has always been larger than the other place. We have always numbered around 750—the magic number. The House of Lords has 750 Members.
	I hope that people do not suddenly decide that small is beautiful all the time and therefore we must go with a policy of small is beautiful. It is paradoxical that if you go to a small rural community, it is bad to have such a policy there. In such an area they want economies of size; they want to have the asylum centres located in large, over-crowded urban areas. That is fine because those lovely rural people are too precious to suffer any inconvenience.
	Perhaps we should have the 250-size centres in rural areas—or maybe even only 100-size centres—but we have to make certain that, wherever we locate them, we do not antagonise citizens living ordinary lives and incite dislike of asylum seekers. We must expedite the processing of applications so that their stay in these centres is as short as possible. We should keep that consideration in mind.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Corbett, have both appealed from the Government Benches for legal advice from the earliest possible stage—the Minister knows that I am also concerned about that—so that we get the best possible quality of first decision and avoid multiple appeals and judicial reviews. I hope that he will explain to the House how he sees legal advice working in these accommodation centres. Will there be resident advisers or will the people in the centres be given proper travel expenses to enable them to get to qualified legal advice?
	I support the amendments. I consider both to be necessary. A limit of 250 people will be far more manageable and give far better protection to unaccompanied women and children. We all know that the centre at Sangatte in France was far too large and almost totally unmanageable. Proposed subsection (2B) in Amendment No. 13 will give flexibility to the Secretary of State to adjust the maximum number in the light of experience.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I support the amendment. I declare a family interest. In the 1930s my father was involved in helping children from the Spanish Civil War and children from Germany to settle in this country.
	My principal concern about the Government's proposals is the concentration of very unhappy people in narrow, isolated environments and its consequences for the children. I support the amendment because it reduces the number. Even at that number, I am still very concerned about what is proposed, but it will be less harmful for the children. I attended the meeting last night. A very important theme of the meeting—and again at lunch today with child refugees—is that these children have been traumatised. They have lost their culture, their homes, their language. They arrive and are put into centres with many other people who have also been traumatised, who have also lost their homes, their lives, their language. Can it be healthy for that to continue for six months?
	I know that there are other priorities—many noble Lords have referred to the need to process claims more quickly and so on—but, looked at from the point of view of the children, I am afraid that I cannot see any way that a size as great as 750 would be in their best interests, even if there were all kinds of services there to support them. That seems unfeasible in remote and isolated areas, especially if one is talking about teachers moving there, even for a short time, to support them.
	I understand that there is no expectation of a great acceleration in the processing of claims in the near future. If that is the case, we must bear in mind that quite a few of these children will be in these centres for up to six months. I strongly support the amendment.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I wonder whether I am one of the few Members of the House who has been involved in setting up centres for refugees. I did so some years ago when I was head of the Refugee Council at the time when my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis was chairman of that organisation. The occasion for setting up the centres—we called them "reception centres"—was when, under a Home Office scheme, the Government took 4,000 Bosnians from the Serb concentration camps and we had to find accommodation for them very quickly.
	I am bound to say that local opposition did exist. There was some surprising local opposition, even to the setting up of very small reception centres, because some local councils did not like them. I do not want to be party political, but Wandsworth Council did not come out of it very well. On the other hand, in some parts of the country there was local support. I remember that we set up a centre in Newcastle, where the local community was incredibly supportive and that gave the Bosnians a very good start in that area.
	I fear that there is likely to be some local opposition, which may be disguised as opposition to the size but is actually based upon prejudice against having people from other countries, who are seeking safety here, living in their midst. So let us not be too naive and say that all opposition is simply based upon objective criteria of size or other reasons.
	Having said that, we need to be careful about size. I am supportive of the idea of accommodation centres because it is important to provide facilities for people who have arrived here, who have nowhere to go and who need to be stabilised in their lives after the trauma of their experiences. We should not forget that some of them will have had appalling experiences on their way to safety. These are people fleeing from persecution, from fear of torture and imprisonment, perhaps even from fear of death.
	It is right that we should provide them with a stable context in which they can begin to rebuild their lives while decisions are made as to their entitlement to stay in this country—that is, whether they qualify under the 1951 Geneva Convention. Accommodation centres per se are useful—and, indeed, for some, essential—bases when people arrive here. They provide advantages in that people can be supported in such centres.
	I worry about the size. I am not saying that any one size is good, but I would urge upon the Government flexibility. Let us not be dogmatic and say, "There will be three large centres"; and then, "There will be more large centres in the country because that is all we can do". Let us be flexible and say, "Let us try some smaller ones".
	I remember that the Refugee Council tried to set up a reception centre in Hammersmith. We found a building with accommodation for about 120 people. Of course, in those days the Home Office would not provide money for it and we simply could not get the resources together to set it up. But we went through all the details of how it should be done—the support, the accommodation, the schools and so on. The Bosnian scheme was Home Office backed, so we had more support for that. Even so the difficulties were enormous.
	So, from my experience, I urge flexibility upon the Home Office. I urge it not to be stuck with one particular model. Let us be flexible. Above all, let us seek local support. It made such a difference to those of us working with refugees, but, more importantly, to the refugees themselves. In Newcastle, there was enthusiastic support from doctors, social workers, local councils and schools. All were keen to help because they felt that it was their duty and responsibility. It makes such a difference to people to be in a sympathetic environment rather than to have the sense that they are surrounded by those who are not keen on their being there or do not want them. Let us opt for local support, flexibility and centres that are not so large.
	We should also remember that support in the camp—that is a slip of the tongue; I mean the accommodation centre—is important. In addition, refugee community organisations will want to give support to people from their own communities and will need access. Support from their own communities in terms of language, culture, religion and so on is both valuable and stabilising. Legal advice given by the Immigration Advisory Service, the Refugee Legal Centre and other organisations is important. If the centres are inaccessible, that kind of advice cannot so easily be forthcoming.
	I appeal to my noble friend—whom I know to be sensitive to these issues and to have an understanding of them—to show flexibility and understanding for the difficulties that may arise if we simply set up large centres in remote areas where support is not forthcoming and where a sympathetic local environment will not exist.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister three or four questions. I remind the House that the debate is not about whether we need accommodation centres; it is about the size and location of the centres.
	First, during the debate on 9th July the Minister said that the proposed opening date for the first pilot centre is autumn 2003. Is that still realistic given the present situation?
	Secondly, as I understand it, these are all pilot schemes based in rural areas. The Refugee Council suggested smaller pilot centres based within the community. Is it not possible, even at this late stage, to examine the possibility of setting up such centres so that proper comparisons can be made about the effectiveness of how the centres will operate; namely, whether it is right and proper to locate them in local community areas or, as the Minister suggests, in rural areas?
	Thirdly, has the Minister seen the report, Parallel Universe, published today by the Refugee Council and the Transport and General Workers' Union, effectively advocating community-based centres? It is not simply a matter of economy in terms of larger centres; it has to do with the large amount of support that people can receive within their own communities. If we look at the successes of many of the refugee organisations in this country and the refugees who have settled here, we see that support is more likely to be forthcoming from their own people than from statutory and voluntary bodies.
	Finally, in relation to large centres, has the Minister taken the trouble to examine the outcome of centres in Europe, where the results are better with smaller centres, better services and more integration into the community? I hope that the Minister will give consideration to my remarks.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate, building on the considerable discussions that we had on the issues raised in Committee. I am grateful for the comments from both Opposition Front Benches. If I am not stretching them too far, the concern relates not to the principle of accommodation centres but to their execution and how the practice meets good principles.
	I begin by reminding noble Lords of the present situation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said, approximately 80,000 applications for asylum are made each year. That includes both individuals and families. Of those, some 37,000 people applied in the past year for accommodation support from the state. There are currently some 50,000 households accommodated in NASS-supported accommodation in the United Kingdom. That is the current situation. Historically, a high proportion of asylum seekers have been concentrated in London and the South East for reasons that the House will know. The dispersal policy was an attempt to try to ensure that while their cases were being considered people were not all concentrated simply in London and the South East.
	Without going into great detail, the consequence of dispersal has been that a number of areas have played a very full part in providing support to asylum seekers, but those have been predominantly inner-city areas. That has not been without its problems. So the origin of the policy of moving towards experiment—a pilot on accommodation centres—was the recognition that we start with a significant problem and that the current situation is not perfect.
	The Government have developed four essential principles that they are seeking to fulfil through the pilot on accommodation centres. First, we are trying to ensure that we provide a proper and appropriate level of support to people who have applied to the state for support while their application is considered.
	Secondly, we are seeking significantly to improve the speed of consideration of asylum cases. I totally agree with all noble Lords who have spoken about the importance of trying to accelerate the proper processing and the fair consideration of asylum claims. It is in the interest neither of asylum seekers nor of the Government that this is tardy, bureaucratic or a paper chase.
	The third principle is to see whether we can spread the responsibility of coping with the numbers seeking asylum fairly around the country rather than simply concentrating the responsibility in inner-city areas.
	The fourth principle is to improve contact management. By "contact management" I mean, for example, not allowing people to disappear or to claim multiple benefits as has happened in some cases and to stamp out any forms of abuse.
	Therefore, we want to trial a system which addresses head-on the costs and social consequences arising from the presence of asylum seekers associated with the existing dispersal arrangements. No one is saying that the existing arrangements are dreadful, but anyone with common sense who has looked at the reality of the situation knows that there are some significant problems, both for those communities that are coping with large numbers of newcomers—who are often welcomed but not always—and, secondly, for the asylum seekers themselves moving into strange areas or into schools where they do not necessarily know people but are given accommodation, and who are often in isolation. So we do not start from a perfect position. It would be dishonest to claim that we do.
	Those are the four principles that underpin the Government's view of how we should take accommodation centres forward to see whether they can contribute to better meeting those four objectives, which I hope the House broadly supports as a matter of common sense and decency. We want the accommodation centres to offer a supportive environment, and hope that the residents will, therefore, receive healthcare and education, be able to take part in purposeful activities, have access to legal advice and interpretation, and be able to observe their religion.
	I go further. The way in which we have currently developed the principle of accommodation centres, albeit on a large scale, seems to me to provide a high level of support and facilities. If there are examples of them being bettered anywhere else in continental Europe, in terms of the facilities and the range of support provided, I should be pleased to see them. We shall argue later about location, but given the principle and the scale of support to be provided in the proposed centres, I believe that they have every chance of being substantially better than is happening in many dispersal areas. It seems a right and proper goal in itself that we should seek to go further in terms of support rather than backwards.
	I turn to the debate on integration. I emphasise that we are talking about people who have applied to us for asylum and whose cases have not yet been considered. I shall not go into the detailed figures—that always causes a slight spat. But I think it is accepted that the vast majority of people are not accepted as refugees under the 1951 convention when the full appeal process has been heard. We are talking about people prior to the final determination of their case. When they have been granted asylum or the right to remain in Britain, they ought to be integrated into society. The issue is how to handle them properly, fairly and efficiently, and give them the support they have asked for prior to that decision being made, which we hope will be done quickly.
	I shall talk about the numbers. The concern, as you would guess, about the Government's putting on the face of the Bill something as arithmetically precise as 250, even though there might be an escape clause that could or could not be challengeable, is that it gives us no flexibility as regards what we are seeking to do, which is to see how in practice we can fulfil the objectives of providing better support, faster processing, better contact management and less burden on local areas or local services. The Government have listened to the debates in Committee and to the representations made by people in this House to me and other Ministers over the summer. I shall try to illustrate that in the hope that it will signal that we are being neither doctrinal nor dogmatic but that we think the four principles advanced are right and proper. We talked to NGOs and the Refugee Council at official level in July. The principles have been welcomed by us, and, I hope, by them.
	The first option we are considering is an accommodation centre that focuses on a series of hostels with a maximum total size of 600 residents and where each individual hostel might have about 50 or 100 people. We are keen to explore and debate further with the Refugee Council the pros and cons of such an option. The second option involves one complex dealing with around 250 people. This option would involve limiting the number of languages spoken in the centre and concentrating on one, two or three key languages rather than having the full range. Such an option might, for example, be restricted to single males, given that that group constitutes by far the largest category of applicants for refugee status. Indeed, that was one of the proposals put to us from the Opposition Benches, and we are pleased to explore the option and to take it forward.
	Thirdly, we were urged to look at not ruling out a family-only accommodation centre; nor would we do so. We are happy to consider that and to think about how it might be developed either in the first phase of pilots or in subsequent ones. The issue seems therefore about how best we provide the support that people request, while their asylum claim is being considered, in ways that meet those principles.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Obviously what he is saying is, in many ways, encouraging, especially the idea of establishing groups of small hostels and other pilot schemes for small centres. Will the resources for that be made available, given that small centres could involve additional costs beyond those of large accommodation centres?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Home Office must make a judgment about cost and the quality of service provided. I shall not go into the detail now, but we are looking at those issues. One factor is that if we reduce the number of languages spoken, we reduce some of the costs. For example, a specialised residence, such as a centre without children, by definition would not have in-house educational facilities. We would want to hold firm to the aspect discussed in some detail in Committee, that is to say, the benefit of trying to do as much of the initial decision-making and the first appeal stage in the centre or as close to it as possible. Effectively, that would bring the decision-making to the centre rather than having a person-chase or a paper-chase around the country, with all the problems that we know that causes. That seems to be a right principle; it does not automatically mean that the court must be located physically in every centre, but it needs to be proximate to allow some of the speed of processing, which is fundamental.
	I shall expand on that issue, if I may. Seventy per cent of all new asylum applications are being dealt with within two months. That is an increase on the 60 per cent we were achieving when I last spoke, and I hope that the rate will continue to rise. If we have accommodation centres operating as I described, we must achieve that and, one hopes, go further. Also, as I shall discuss later, we want to make the appeal process as rapid as possible, consistent with doing the job fairly. I hope that this signals that by no means are we dogmatic in our approach. However, we do think it right that the Government of the country should experiment as regards how better we can provide support requested and meet the principles set out. That is what we are doing.
	I shall respond to some queries. This may take a while, so I trust the House will bear with me. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made important points about the traffic impact. That is a proper consideration for the planning inquiry process. In principle, our position is that we would not have made applications if we did not think they were consistent with traffic management. However, those will not ultimately be our decisions; they will be for others to make. I agree with his point about shops. Appropriate food must be available to buy in the on-site shop for people from the ethnic groups, and we intend to ensure that that happens. Local shops may also provide an appropriate range of food. One would hope so, as competition in principle is a good thing.
	Discussion took place with the Refugee Council at official level in July. My honourable friend Beverley Hughes wrote to the Refugee Council a couple of days ago to request further discussions at both ministerial and official level on the options I talked about.
	In response to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I hope that I have indicated that we do take these issues seriously. I do not think that we start from the position that a small centre or a big one is automatically right or wrong, but it is important that some of the principles are met, especially the speed of processing.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, asked what was the position on current applications. If I have it right, two planning applications have been submitted. I suspect that it will be no great surprise to him that the local authorities in those areas have rejected them on initial application. The Home Secretary has appealed in both cases, and there will be public inquiries on both. The first will take place on 10th December, and the second on 8th April. A planning application for a further site may be submitted before long.
	In response to the question by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, about Scotland, the matter is still under consideration and a final decision has not been made.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, are the two applications for centres of substantial size in rural areas?

Lord Filkin: Yes, my Lords. From recollection, both applications were for centres of approximately 750 people, with a full range of on-site facilities. I have not referred in full to those facilities, but they were referred to in Committee. They include healthcare, activities, a nursery, a school—the whole works.
	On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, I cannot but stress that it is not our intention to segregate asylum seekers, nor do I believe that that will be the effect of what we are doing. We are giving them the support they want initially for what I hope will be a relatively short period.
	There are two points arising from that. On the time, clearly most people who are granted asylum will be out of an accommodation centre within two months, because most people who are granted asylum have it granted on initial hearing. We are dealing with 70 per cent of all cases within two months. It therefore follows that most people who get asylum will be out relatively rapidly, which is one of the benefits. However, assuming that they are there for two or three months, I agree with the point made by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, that, potentially, that period could provide us with a very good opportunity to support and give guidance to people about living in Britain, language training and acclimatisation before they move on to permanent residence in Britain, if their application is approved.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke about Pershore, which I know well. My father lived there. I do not think that I should go into the detail of the site. That will be part of the planning application, if one is submitted. I have heard the noble Lord's points.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, is absolutely right, as so often. We are talking about 3,000 places on this pilot. That is 3,000 out of 50,000 currently receiving NASS support. That is a minute proportion. It is a very small experiment. We might better be criticised for it being too small an experiment rather than too large a one.
	We should talk later rather than now about the quality of initial decisions. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, raised issues about children. I have enjoyed discussions with the children's organisation. Some of the children will have been traumatised. We strongly believe that the support and facilities that we will provide to them in accommodation centres when they come into this country will be at least as good as, and I hope substantially better than, the support they will be receiving in some dispersal situations. They will be there for only a short period if their case is approved. I am glad to acknowledge that the Bishop of Birmingham elect and others have recognised that the proposal potentially offers a more rather than a less supportive environment.
	I am in danger of boring the House, so I shall seek to conclude. I have explained why we think that more than just carrying on the current dispersal system is necessary. It would be irresponsible of a government to continue with the current situation and not try to improve support processing and avoid some of the pressures on local communities or the difficulties of support that people are feeling. That is what the trial is about. It is a trial for 3,000. It will not run to the time that we had originally envisaged, because the planning process will delay it, so it will not happen immediately. The test is whether we meet those four goals.
	I shall be pleased to bring the issue back on Third Reading, when I should like to put on record much more strongly the process of evaluation of those centres. I should like to document before the House how we will monitor—against what criteria and through what process—and by what means this House will be given the opportunity of ongoing investigation of the accommodation centres as they are piloted. Ultimately, the House and the Government have to see whether the centres will do the job better than the status quo. It would be right and proper for the House to be given the opportunity to do that.
	I shall seek to put that on the record on Third Reading. We may even be in a position to write more fully to noble Lords beforehand so that they can see how the House will have an opportunity to engage in scrutinising the process of evaluation.
	In conclusion, the status quo is not perfect. Please do not fetter the Government's hand on sensible experimentation in trying to deal with this major problem.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. I thank those who have opposed me as well as those who have supported me. The noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, pointed out clearly the responsibility of this House to the public, who are worried and want to put pressure on the Government to make the system work. They will continue that pressure. He was right. We have that duty. This debate is the way in which we carry out that duty, with our own measured way, our deep concern and the tremendous experience around the House.
	The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, proved my point for me. The system that the Government are proposing will not work. It will not deliver what the public wish—a resolution to the problem of those who come to seek asylum in this country and find that the process that they have to go through is lengthy and difficult for them. It is difficult for the country, too, to see that occurrence.
	As always, the Minister was courteous and thoughtful in his response, but I must remind the House of the moving speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis—I beg his pardon; he is also right honourable. He expressed his deep concern and referred to the fact that his grandparents were refugees who came here to become future citizens. He encapsulated what lies behind the whole debate. People who come here as asylum seekers hope to become our future citizens. The way we treat them in accommodation centres is their first contact with this country. The way in which those accommodation centres are set up must give them an experience that helps them to value the fact that they are here when they become citizens.
	I have been accused by some of trying to impose inflexibility on the Government. I assure the Government that Amendment No. 12 would do nothing of the sort. It is reasonable in the extreme. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, thought that I was being too reasonable in the power that it would give the Secretary of State for change. I am simply saying that the Government must have an open mind. They must consider different types of accommodation centre. I am the one giving them the flexibility on the face of the Bill, yet the Minister has again said that there will be 3,000 places in four accommodation centres.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I would be less than honest if I did not indicate that the pilot has been sized of that order. We are looking for a pilot of about 3,000 places. What I have said about our minds being open on alternative sizes of accommodation centre leaves open the question of the number of such pilots that we will take forward. I hope that that is the reverse of inflexibility.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. The difficulty that we face is that the Government have decided that the trial will comprise four centres of 750, although as yet we do not know where the fourth site will be. We have had no guarantee today that smaller accommodation centres in different sites near urban areas will be trialled from now. The plans would have to be in train seriously in the Government's mind now and the budget would have to be allocated, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, pointed out.
	At the moment there is no incentive on the face of the Bill to provide the Government with the opportunity to trial different types of accommodation centre, which we believe could more properly meet the needs of those living in them and those resident near them.
	Because of the time that the debate has taken, I should not dare to try to repeat some of the wonderful speeches that have been made. Noble Lords have made clear throughout that their concern is to be humane. We have to exercise humanity alongside effective decision-making. If we lose humanity in this, we lose everything. I believe that I have a duty to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 171; Not-Contents, 107.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
	Clause 15 [Support for destitute asylum-seeker]:
	[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]

Lord Dholakia: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Page 9, line 28, after "centre" insert "for a maximum period of four months, save in exceptional circumstances"

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I shall be brief. There are essentially two arguments in relation to the time limits that we are proposing. First, we seek to force the Government to make good their commitment to speed up the processing time. The Minister said that applications will, on average, take two months. However, those working in the various agencies have assured me that it currently takes much longer than two months to process applications.
	Secondly, the centres are not a normal social setting. A lengthy stay in a centre is a poor preparation for settlement for those who will remain in the United Kingdom following a successful outcome to their application.
	On Report in the other place, we tabled amendments to impose a strict time limit of six months for all asylum seekers. In that debate, the Home Secretary picked up a Liberal Democrat suggestion that, if the Government were minded to accept a six-month limit, to provide flexibility in special circumstances, provision should be made for a further stay of a maximum of 12 weeks.
	Various issues have arisen which have led us to continue to press for an amendment to set a maximum time limit. The Bill currently does not specify a time limit, and references to "current" intentions provide little reassurance. Moreover, what is now Clause 23 deals only with families, and only with families with children under 18, rather than 17.
	In introducing the then new Clause 23, the Government referred only to the "normal social setting" argument. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said:
	"We have listened to the concerns expressed by organisations such as Save the Children and the Refugee Council about the length of time children may spend in accommodation centres. We recognise that a few months may seem much longer in the lives of younger children. We can also see the need to consider whether what one might call a more normal social setting outside an accommodation centre would be appropriate for children at a particular stage having regard to their development needs".—[Official Report, 10/07/02; col.748.]
	On Report in the other place, however, the processing time argument featured—

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but we are finding it extremely difficult to hear what he is saying. I am sure that what he is saying is important; could he please speak up, into the microphone, and speak a little more slowly?

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I apologise; I have just noticed that there is no microphone in front of me.
	We have sought a realistic time scale. If the time scale is too short, some applications may be processed with inadequate time to do them justice. We have looked carefully at examples: at a number of induction centres and the time factor, and we are convinced by our proposal of a maximum stay of four months. In exceptional circumstances a further period of no more than two months is probably appropriate. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I hesitate to pre-empt the noble Lord, but since the amendment also appears in my name perhaps I should make the position clear. Noble Lords will have realised that some noise was made when Peers were leaving following the Division. When the Deputy Speaker was reading out the amendments they may not have noticed that I purposely did not move the previous amendment, which I had tabled in Committee, and which would set the time limit at a much lower level. That was because I have been considering time limits with care over the last few weeks of the Recess and holding meetings with outside organisations.
	On further reflection, I decided that it would be appropriate to be more flexible to the Government and to set them a realistic upper time limit. I agree wholeheartedly with the amendment ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. It is an essential part of the jigsaw puzzle. We need it in the Bill, because if the puzzle is completed we will have the answer to the fair and effective humane processing of asylum claims in this country.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, I shared the difficulty of a number of noble Lords in hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was saying. It may be in part because he was not near a microphone, but it was in part because the excitement and hubbub of the Vote was still prevalent as he began to speak, which made it difficult. He kept his remarks fairly short, but I found one of the things he said difficult to follow. He indicated that whereas the time limit he suggests would be reasonable for most cases, it might be too short in some instances.
	I asked myself: why have a time limit at all? I do not know about the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, but perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was talking about a time limit to force the Government to take action within a certain period. But if one thinks of the interests of the person in the accommodation centre, the idea that he should leave it willy-nilly even though he may be in the midst of an application for judicial review or whatever—however few such cases may be—is astonishing.
	What is the value to such individuals if they are forced out of the accommodation centre at some arbitrary time limit? There does not seem to be any gain for them, and certainly none to the trialling of the system, which proposes that the accommodation centres should provide helpful support. It seems odd that even if the asylum seeker wants to remain there for a longer period, the time limit puts a stop on it. Either I have not grasped what the noble Lord and noble Baroness are seeking or they are seeking to do something arbitrary and without any value.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Lord. As he will be aware from earlier discussions, save in exceptional cases the Minister and the Government are officially committed to a policy of keeping people in accommodation centres for no longer than six months, but that period is not written into the Bill. The Government have said that if it is necessary to maintain a person in an accommodation centre for more than six months they will consider meeting the educational needs of the children in an outside establishment.
	So the Government have a time limit in mind, but it is not written into the Bill. The reason for the four-month limit proposed by my noble friend can be simply explained. When the White Paper Fairer, Faster and Firmer was published, the Government said that they would aim to decide first applications within two months and appeals within a further four months. The four-month period is determined by the Government's argument that the accommodation centres will speed up the process.
	I find it difficult to understand how, before the accommodation centres were ever thought of and with all the difficulties faced by asylum seekers—they are moved around the country from one place to another and their legal advisers have to catch up with them—far in the distant past, when the White Paper was published, the Government envisaged bringing down the processing of an application through all its stages to conclusion from whatever the average was at the time to a maximum period of six months.
	We are saying that surely the point of accommodation centres is to make the process speedier as well as fairer, and therefore we do not need to keep people in them for the proposed six-month period. A four-month time limit in the Bill will give the Government some incentive to make the process both faster and fairer, as they say.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I am in total sympathy with the amendment. As I argued on the previous amendment, we all want to see a faster process consistent with fairness. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, demonstrated, the problem is that two and four do not make four; two and four make six. The Minister has told your Lordships that the intention is to deal with the initial decision within two months. If that decision results in granting asylum, those applicants then have the status of refugees and move into the wider community.
	The amendment proposes that if on initial consideration an asylum application is rejected, the appeal process begins. The Government say that they hope to complete that within a further four months. However, halfway through that process the relevant asylum seekers may be hoofed out. I cannot see the sense of that. What favour that does to asylum seekers I have no idea.
	We shall shortly discuss amendments concerned with education. Let us suppose for a minute that your Lordships' House decides that it does not want education facilities offered in accommodation centres but insists that they are provided in mainstream schools. Children may therefore settle into mainstream schools but after two months the relevant asylum application may be rejected. Appeals are made. Two months further down the road—halfway along the path to the appeal being resolved—those children may be yanked out of those schools if their parents are hoofed out of their accommodation centres. Who does that help? I say again to your Lordships that I sympathise and agree absolutely with the ambition behind the measure but in reality it will do asylum seekers nothing but harm.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—as we are on Report I shall be brief—is he aware that at Oakington the initial decision takes just seven to 10 days? Appeals are then listed within four weeks thereafter, well within the four month period we are discussing.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for those comments. However, it is no good saying—as the amendment does—"in exceptional circumstances" as that will make a mockery of exceptional circumstances. However, if at accommodation centre A it is still unhappily taking four months to get through the appeal process, it cannot be the intention of the proposers of the amendment to say that in every single case that that timetable is not improved upon—in other words, the asylum seeker is still halfway through the appeal process—the Minister will pray in aid exceptional circumstances. That would make a mockery of exceptional circumstances. We want the process dealt with expeditiously. The noble Baroness's point is well made and well taken. Such timetables are achievable at Oakington due to the quality and the quantity of the on-site legal services provided.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, is not the answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, that if no date or period of time is put on the face of the Bill there is no incentive to speed up the asylum process? The Government have clearly said that they intend to speed up the asylum process. They have said that they believe they can make it faster than it is at the moment. One would hope that they would be able to complete the asylum process within four months. Surely by having a date on the Bill one provides an incentive to ensure that that happens. If one has no date, the answer to the noble Lord is that there is no incentive and therefore the speeding up does not occur.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that there should be every incentive for expeditious handling of asylum cases. I imagine that that would have widespread support throughout the House. I do, however, believe that this amendment is misguided. I encourage those who put it forward to consider withdrawing it and reconsidering their position.
	I do not want to become a sort of humanitarian bore in this debate but I have said—as I said at previous stages of our deliberations—that we are dealing with people. We must keep the pre-eminence and importance of the individual in mind all the time. I believe that this could become a disturbing and artificial intervention in the handling of individual cases. Surely, in the midst of all the other anxieties that people are facing, what is essential is that they should not be faced with uncertainty about their accommodation and their personal relations. That could be a disaster if it arose at a tricky point in the whole proceedings.
	My noble friend Lord Dubs argued on the previous amendment that the Government should look for a flexible approach. I believe that flexibility is needed here. The objective of speed and expeditious handling of the applications is right but to introduce an artificial constraint of this kind into the accommodation centres is not the way to achieve that.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I listened with great care to this debate and to the previous one. I declare an interest as a member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. I have been such a member for 17 years and have seen many changes in that time.
	I am worried that we are developing a two-tier system here. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, made it clear that if people are in accommodation centres for six months, we are talking about 6,000 people a year and if people are in accommodation centres for four months, we are talking about 9,000 people a year. Yet there are 80,000 people applying for asylum every year. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has just mentioned Oakington's record. That record is excellent. However, I refer to the situation where a few people's hearings may be fast-tracked but the rest of them block up. Every single week when I sit on immigration tribunals we have to send cases back for rehearing at adjudicator level because no Home Office presenting officer was present and the relevant person was not fairly cross-examined.
	I am considering cost-effectiveness. Rather than having a few people specially dealt with, would it not be better to provide better qualified Home Office presenting officers, for example, so that cases can be dealt with quickly, effectively and efficiently, as the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, said? I am worried about fast-tracking a few asylum seekers. That matter concerns me. Although I would be happy to support the amendment I am worried about the whole scenario.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I start by saying that the Government share the goal but not the mechanism. Clearly it would be absolutely excellent if we could deal with the initial decision and all the stages of appeal that an asylum applicant may choose to go through within four months. However, on our calculation, although that may be possible in some cases, it is clearly impossible and unrealistic in others. I shall not go into the detail—I believe that we did so in Committee—of the intervals that apply between different stages but clearly the House knows that an applicant has—as he or she should do—an initial hearing when a decision is made. Then they have a right of appeal to the Immigration Appellate Authority. Then they have a right if they wish to petition to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to consider their case. If there is a hearing, clearly that takes time. Even if leave is not granted, the process takes time. Then, of course, as the House well knows, applicants and their advisers at times seek to use vigorously judicial review and bring challenges under ECHR.
	Although I very much hope that we increase our processing speed so that most cases are dealt with within four months, it is completely unrealistic to think that we can do that unless—which I am sure is not the case—we are either arguing that people should not have those appeal rights or we are arguing that the Government should just grant people asylum if the process is taking almost four months as that is the only way of avoiding the shambles of having to move them on. As I say, although the goal is utterly commendable, we do not think that it is realistic as a general principle on the face of the Bill.
	As my noble friend Lord Corbett said, we previously spoke of two months, not four months, being a realistic target for processing families with children, albeit with the safeguard of a little more time if necessary.
	Secondly, we must recognise that no one knows what future events we shall face as a country in handling asylum. It is possible that we shall get peaks of demand, as has happened in the past. If the Government were faced with the massive responsibility of processing a substantial increase in asylum claims as a result of some tragedy or problem elsewhere in the world, and were fettered by having a measure like this on the face of the Bill, they would be considerably impeded in their ability to deal sensibly with such a position.
	As has been said already, we do not consider that it would be in the applicants' own interests because they would have to be moved—whatever their state of process and whatever their wishes. That does not appear to be fair, decent or good management.
	The second point was the argument about incentive. Speaking as a former manager, I recognise the importance of incentives, but I am not certain that we need any more incentives to move forward with this business than we have already. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships' House that it is currently costing the country £1 billion per year and more in asylum support costs. That is money we have to pay, but there are plenty of other uses for it. Clearly, the faster we can deal with applications properly, the more that that bill will reduce for any given number of applicants. Keeping people on support for a long time while decision-making is slow is neither humane to them, nor economical to the Government. Therefore, I do not believe that the incentive is needed.
	I say in a spirit of open-mindedness that we have already given clear commitments that in regulations, when we are considering the situation of families with children, we shall put in place a system where at six months their case will be reviewed. If it is still considered appropriate for them to be in an accommodation centre at nine months, and the case has not been determined, that family will have the right, if they so wish, to leave the centre.
	I do not want to develop policy from the Dispatch Box. However, I should like to take that principle away, recognise what we have already said in a letter to Simon Hughes, and confirm that we would use the affirmative resolution procedures. Your Lordships' House would have the power to ensure that was not just done in the Home Office but that there was a right of scrutiny and challenge by the House itself. In addition, I should like to consider whether, and in what circumstances, we might be able to apply that principle to give some commitments concerning faster processing and review.
	I am not implying for one second that we are going to say that four months is possible and everybody should go. However, I would like to think about whether there are certain circumstances in which we could signal that we would be pleased to lay down some criteria and put the process before the House. We would be pleased to bring forward further thinking on that at Third Reading.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him to clarify the welcome remarks that he has just made. Will he consider the concern on the Opposition Benches about the length of time that the processing of asylum seekers has taken, often amounting to months and months? The concern of the House is therefore that there should be some kind of limit in the Bill not wholly dependent upon future regulations, the length of which are completely unknown.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I understand the anxiety. It is an anxiety that the Government share in terms of the time that the asylum process and decision-making have taken—a product of the enormous increase in applications that we have experienced during the past five, six, or seven years. However, I do not believe that it would be right to put this on the face of the Bill. We shall have a genuine look at what we can commit to putting into secondary legislation, along the lines of what I have already talked about in terms of families with children.
	I am seeking not to give a copper-bottomed guarantee that we shall do " or Y in detail, but to look at a mechanism which gives the Government the power to make changes and which additionally gives the House the power to challenge any proposal by the Government in that respect. That seems to be a fair division of power: to the executive to do its job and to the House to scrutinise what is proposed.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances that the matter will return to us. My understanding is that he will put forward a proposal before Third Reading in order that we can examine it. If it does not meet our expectations, at least we shall have an opportunity to take up the matter at that stage. In the mean time, I accept his proposal. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.]

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Page 9, line 32, at end insert ", and
	(c) there is a place available in an appropriate maintained school for any dependant of school age"he right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to these amendments which are identical to those moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, at Committee stage on 10th July. Their effect is to reverse the Government's proposals to prevent children in accommodation centres from attending local schools. The later amendments seek to delete Clauses 34 and 35 of the Bill, which remove the duty on local education authorities to provide education for children in accommodation centres. Amendment No. 16 stipulates that families with children of school age should be placed in accommodation centres only if no places are available in local schools, thereby overcoming concerns about overcrowding schools.
	In Committee stage on these amendments, many noble Lords expressed their concerns about the Government's desire to keep children seeking asylum out of schools. The notion of segregated education has also caused no little disquiet among some of my colleagues on these Benches, which will not be a surprise in view of the contributions of the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Hereford and Derby.
	Rather than rehearse what has already been said in your Lordships' House on the matter, I should like to move the debate on by drawing attention to how it has developed in the period since—among both those who have questions about that part of the legislation in principle and those who have questions about its practice and process, or both, of course.
	First, I should like to speak about the reaction of some of my colleagues who backed up a statement that I issued yesterday. We released a statement explaining the cause of our concern and urging the Government to rethink their position. I should like to read part of that statement, with your Lordships' indulgence. I quote:
	"As clergy we firmly believe in the human dignity and worth of every person who seeks refuge in this country. We are deeply concerned, therefore, by Government plans to prohibit children in the new accommodation centres from going to school.
	This is an unnecessary and pernicious measure. It serves no purpose other than to stigmatise and marginalise already vulnerable children. It will benefit neither refugee children—who will miss the opportunity to learn, play and develop in an everyday school environment—nor other pupils—who will be denied the chance to learn about other traditions and countries, about diversity and tolerance.
	Asylum seekers should attract compassion and kindness, rather than rejection and intolerance. They give us an opportunity to show human goodness at its best, but all too often society instead chooses to show its most cynical and uncaring face. It is up to the Government to take a lead, to tell us that we should want for refugee children what we would want for our own children—only the very best. We fear that instead the Government is sending a message that discrimination and segregation are acceptable.
	We view refugee children as children above all else, and all children need and deserve the best care and the best services that we can offer them. There is no question of some being more deserving than others. Therefore, there is no excuse for some being denied services that are available to others".
	By issuing that statement we have made clear our view from these Benches that it is unjustifiable to treat a particularly vulnerable group of children as if their rights and their needs are inferior to those of other children. On the contrary, children seeking asylum are often fleeing unimaginable horrors and have particularly acute needs.
	Some have experienced first-hand the brutality of war. Some have been abused and tortured. Others have seen their loved ones killed or have no idea of what has become of their mother, father, brothers and sisters. I learnt that this morning at a meeting organised by Save the Children. They are seeking not only refuge but also understanding, compassion and hope. These children are not villains; they are hopeless and helpless. Inclusion and integration will be the key to their rehabilitation.
	I want now to turn to three points that are being made by the Government in their support for this part of the Bill. First, the Government have sought to deflect criticism of their plans for segregated education by claiming that children seeking asylum will be better off by being educated in accommodation centres. That argument contradicts the DfES's own guidance which states:
	"Rapid enrolment and regular attendance at school is highly desirable for asylum-seeking and refugee children".
	It also contradicts joint DfES and NUT guidance to schools published earlier this year, which explain the educational benefits of teaching refugee children in mainstream classes. It states:
	"Teachers will recognise that the relearning process—and especially the acquisition of English—will be most rapid if new pupils engage and work with other children in the class. Experience and research with other pupils, for whom English is an additional language, bears this out. The host children are central to the solution".
	Some of the asylum seekers I met today describe the projected accommodation centre facilities as "asylum schools"—their own soundbite. And they dread the thought of the isolation and mutual celebration of personal misery which such places are likely to engender because the education facilities will be exclusively for people in the same predicament.
	It seems to me that the Home Office is basing its policy on crude and sweeping assumptions about the ability of particular groups of children to cope in some settings. And I gather it has done so without much consultation with teachers' groups or others involved in the children's lobby. If it is beneficial for such children to be taught separately, why are the Government not also proposing that other groups of children whose first language is not English, or who have special particular needs, be taught separately?
	Furthermore, we need to note the strong opposition of all the major children's charities—Save the Children, the Children Society, the NSPCC and Barnardo's—and the teaching unions—the NUT, the NASUWT and the ATL—as well as the ecumenical body, the Church's Commission on Racial Justice. They argue forcefully that children seeking asylum are better off in mainstream schools where they are able to enjoy in full the social and mental dimensions of the school experience, which are so vital to their well-being.
	Given the scale of the opposition from experts and professionals, the onus is on the Government to provide evidence or authoritative endorsement for their claim that children are better off by being educated in accommodation centres, regardless of whether they are in those centres for two, four, six, eight or 12 months.
	Secondly, we have been told by the Home Office that education provided in accommodation centres will equal the quality and nature of that in schools. I regard that as an improbable claim. Already the Government have made inconsistent statements about the role of the LEA and the status of the national curriculum and they have admitted that child protection and anti-bullying policies will not have the statutory force that they have in mainstream schools.
	When we discover more about the precise nature of the education that will be provided, it seems to me likely that there will be innumerable differences between it and the education that will be available in a mainstream school. Consider, for instance, the number of children in an accommodation centre—according to the Government, about 120—which means that there will be about seven children in each year group. At secondary level, it will be highly expensive to ensure that each year group receives specialist teaching in each subject area laid down in the national curriculum. In practice, it is likely that only a limited number of subjects will be taught, that teachers will double up and teach subjects in which they are not specialists, and that children will be taught in groups which span a wide age range.
	I have before me another set of figures put forward by the New Policy Unit. It has calculated how many teachers the new accommodation centres can afford if they spend the same per pupil as in mainstream schools. It calculates that at primary level, two to three teachers, using a figure of £2,600 per pupil, could be afforded to cover six year groups, including special needs and all language support.
	At secondary level, four teachers, using a figure of £3,700 per pupil, could be afforded, covering seven year groups, all national curriculum subjects, language support and special needs. Those calculations assume that all the money would be spent on teachers and take no account of the books, equipment and other resources that would be required.
	So many questions are unanswered. For instance, which public exams will children in accommodation centres be able or required to take? What types of support staff will there be in accommodation centres; for instance, educational psychologists and youth workers? What vocational courses will be available to young people? The NUT recently stated:
	"Education within the confines of an accommodation centre cannot equal the range of provision within a school or education authority. There is no single school in the UK which could replicate the range of provision available in an LEA, let alone for it to be credible that it would be possible to provide such range in an accommodation centre".
	Thirdly, another Home Office argument claims that it is inappropriate to integrate those who may not remain in this country. It goes to the heart of how the UK views and treats children whose asylum claims are undecided. I simply do not believe that there is ever a situation in which integration and non-discrimination are not in the best interests of the child. While two or three months may seem a short period for an adult, it is a long and significant period in the life of a child. The positive and normative experiences of learning and social interaction in a mainstream environment will remain with and help children, whatever the next move. The benefits of mainstream schooling, however short-term, far outweigh concerns about possible disruption to both school and child, should he or she leave.
	Elsewhere, the Government are a consistent and committed advocate of social inclusion and non-discrimination. Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have in recent weeks declared that the same opportunity should be available to every child in the UK, whatever his or her circumstances. DfES policy since 1997 has been defined by efforts to promote inclusive education and to draw all pupils, whatever their needs and ability, into mainstream schools. I find it difficult, to say the least, to see how keeping some children out of mainstream schools squares with this. Indeed, efforts to promote inclusion and integration will be seriously undermined by the ramifications of a segregated education system. For example, at St Luke's school in Portsmouth there are a number of children of asylum seekers. They enrich the school and it is in that context and environment where they belong.
	In conclusion, the nub of the issue is simply this. We should want the best for every child in our country: the best care; the best opportunities; the best services; the best education regardless of their immigration status or of their length of stay here. In other words, we should treat all children as children above all else. The Government are to be congratulated on seeing children as part of the whole process. We need to find a solution to a problem, but to see it as a possibility. That is why I regard the route they are taking as misguided.
	In a recent article, Rebecca Hickman of Save the Children stated:
	"When it comes to children seeking asylum, the Home Office has always struggled to discern the child in the asylum seeker".
	We are talking about children who are not small adults but people in their own right. If the Government pursue their misguided policy on segregated education, that sad statement is borne out. Instead, the Government should demonstrate that they, too, believe that children seeking asylum are children first and foremost by allowing them to attend mainstream schools.
	I return to the point I made at the beginning of my remarks. I am aware that there are those who are critical of this part of the Bill on the question of principle: children should not be segregated in this way for whatever length of time. Then there are those who criticise this legislation on practice. Is it really right and proper to set up another tier of education in an already over-stretched and often rather confused profession, or both? I hope that the House can unite around these amendments in a cross-party way. I beg to move.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords:
	"Refugee children are part of our society from the day they arrive in this country".
	I quote this statement from the Children's Consortium, partly because I recognise that, to some, it may be a challenging assertion. But it is a fundamental principle behind this amendment. I join the right reverend Prelate in urging the Government to reconsider their policy on education in these centres.
	The Bill as a whole is, understandably, designed to deter migrants within the category of asylum seekers and to protect our own citizens. But this clause separates out all young asylum seekers once they have entered the country. They are all, or nearly all, bona fide applicants in these accommodation centres and about half of them will in any case remain here.
	The Government's main objections to this amendment last time were about length of stay and content. They have repeated them today. In an ideal world, they say, the children will remain only a matter of weeks. Yet, without going into the details again, we know that the average initial decision takes about seven months at present. Enough has been said about targets, but the present reality is that the Government's argument is wishful thinking. We are talking about months, not weeks and the children will need to be in school.
	Separate education cannot be right. No group of children should suffer on the grounds of their immigration status or anything else. In any case, as the right reverend Prelate said, the full range of education is inaccessible in an accommodation centre. How can the Government ensure that the national curriculum is taught in all its aspects, even in the larger centres, when there are only a handful of children in each year group? Nor can child protection and other legislation have the statutory force that they would have in mainstream schools.
	There are undoubtedly problems of integration, as there are in any school, not least because of language ability. But the evidence is that far from disrupting schools children of asylum seekers are well received and bring benefits to mainstream schools. Recent interviews conducted by Save the Children with over 700 asylum-seeking children in Glasgow show that school is the highlight of their lives. Schools and teachers were most frequently cited by them as,
	"the best thing about the UK".
	Mainstream education is the ideal starting-point to enable refugee children, all of whom will have experienced dislocation, if not trauma, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and many others, to start afresh. It would also have a lasting impact on their future integration into the community.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 34 and 35. It looks as if the Government are in some difficulty as regards their provisions for children with special educational needs. I am advised that these clauses are highly restrictive. Children with severe disabilities will be covered by statements from LEAs providing them with places in special schools. But how do the Government intend to assess the special educational needs of children in accommodation centres when the LEAs have no duty to make an assessment?
	Clause 34 specifically prevents local authorities allowing other SEN children to attend mainstream schools. It is hard to see how the education provider in accommodation centres can possibly provide the necessary support within these centres without offending against the principles that we all understand—the efficient education of other children and the efficient use of resources, as listed under subsection (7)(b) and (c) of the clause.
	I return to my original point; namely, that children seeking asylum belong to our society and cannot be excluded from it. While their cases are considered, they must be given the opportunities that our own children enjoy and which international law demands.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before we go any further, I should like the House to contemplate the confusion that has arisen as a result of the earlier discussion about the size of accommodation centres. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, gave us to understand that these large centres represent only half of what is planned. One has become a little sceptical about whether or not they will happen. However, in response to the Liberal Democrat amendment, the noble Lord very encouragingly told us that there would be all sorts of smaller centres.
	At last night's meeting with those very well-informed people, all the points just outlined by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, were made. They are all true; indeed, I agree with every one of them. But the discussion thus far is assuming that we are talking about dispersed families in small centres—that is, anywhere where there is a local school. However, the big centres about which we are talking are quite different. The one that I understood was to be established in Scotland but whose future is now in doubt would be miles from any school. I was just trying to imagine what would happen to the children. Nursery school children, small children and primary school children would have to be bussed to school, but they would not all be able to attend just one school because many of the local schools would be quite small.
	I am sure that the Minister who is to reply to the debate will very likely make those points. But, rather strangely, this Bill does not allow children from accommodation centres to attend local schools. That is what is wrong. As a result, it has evoked a debate in the Church, among noble Lords, and among all the people whom we met last night regarding the rights and wrongs of segregated education. I do not believe that it is about that; it is about what is the right thing for educating children in these centres of whatever kind.
	It seems to me that the Government's great mistake is to have forbidden these children to attend state schools under the provisions of the Bill. They will find themselves in a jam if they create small centres and the Bill forbids attendance in mainstream schools. So they must reconsider that provision. The part of this group of amendments that addresses the point must be pursued.
	The people whose request for asylum is refused are very often dealt with very quickly. I am not sure how long the process takes. Although we are not supposed to discuss the figures too much because it causes anxiety, I believe that over three-quarters of people are refused. As I said, the decision is made very quickly. If a non-English-speaking child of, say, seven arrives at an accommodation centre and subsequently attends a local school, he will begin to make friends and start to talk in English—by Jove, children learn quickly in school. He would enjoy the experience hugely; but, no sooner had he made friends, he would have to return home. Is that kind? I am not sure.
	I have doubts about this provision, partly on the grounds that I believe the Bill has got the whole process muddled up. If we are talking about smaller centres, the Government should not be forbidding children to attend local schools. However, if they are talking about big centres, are they right to suppose that it would be better for these children just to learn English with the help of some good teachers? I do not know why we are talking in terms of the whole national curriculum for a period of just a few weeks. That seems ridiculous.
	The policy that the Government are enunciating here confirms to me that the whole issue has a presentational element to it. They want to comfort people who think that the school might be swamped and they want to suggest something that can be done neatly in big centres. However, that does not add up. I suggest to the Minister that she should certainly consider whether or not to continue with the clauses that the right reverend Prelate seeks to remove from the Bill. I am not so sure about the first amendment. Perhaps the Minister could confirm whether she is just talking about big centres, or all centres. If the noble Baroness changes her policy, does she accept that local schools must be available? A number of questions have been raised and I shall listen very carefully to the reply to them.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, it is right that your Lordships' House should focus upon children. The right reverend Prelate was absolutely right: we are not talking about the appendages of adults; we are talking about children in their own right. Having said that, I have some difficulty with these amendments and briefly I want to explain to your Lordships why.
	I did not attend the meeting in the Moses Room yesterday because, quite frankly, I could not see its relevance to this debate and this Bill. The meeting was all about refugee children. These clauses in the Bill are not about refugee children; they are about the children of asylum seekers. I am not nit-picking here; it is an extremely important distinction. In the Bill we are dealing—

Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to read the UNHCR handbook, where he will find that all the people whom we call "asylum seekers" are described as "refugees".

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I have not read the handbook. I take the noble Earl's point, but I have some difficulties with the piece of paper that I and, I do not doubt, the rest of your Lordships have received from the High Commissioner on this matter because, in my view, the language does not entirely fit.
	However, I am making a point which I consider to be important. In the context of processing asylum applications as speedily as possible, we are dealing here with the children of those who make the applications. I made this point to your Lordships previously. The Minister reminded the House that it is intended that the first assessment of those claims will be made within eight weeks. For a number of children of those parents in most parts of the country, six or seven of those weeks could fall during the period when schools are shut for the summer holiday. That is a practicality of the issue—the mainstream schools could be locked up for six or seven weeks for the summer holidays. I am not sure whom that is supposed to help but, in my view, it will certainly not help those children.
	We know that broadly between 35 and 40 per cent of those making asylum applications are admitted following the first assessment. According to what the Minister has told your Lordships, such a decision will be reached within eight weeks. I am then led to wonder—the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, referred to this—what favour we do the children whose parents succeed on the first assessment of their applications by taking them into mainstream schools and then taking them out again because they are to be resettled elsewhere. I ask that question simply because I believe it to be a practical one.
	I want to ask some other questions. The latest reports that I have seen say that at present most applications for asylum come from people who have left Afghanistan, the Sudan and Somalia. There may have been one other country, but that is the kind of region concerned. I want to ask how likely it is that the children of those families will ever have been to a formal school in their own country. I believe it to be very unlikely.
	The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, quoted from a joint survey by Glasgow City Council and Save the Children. One of the most important findings was that 95 per cent of the children of asylum seekers involved in the survey spoke English. I find that astonishing, but that is what it said. I believe it to be a very rare group of asylum seekers that would have that level of knowledge of the English language, but there it is in the survey. And, while I do not for a moment take away from what the survey said, in a sense it is no surprise because all the children said that they wanted to be at school.
	That, again, raises a question mark for me. The survey did not—and, of course, should not because the issue was not researched in that way—refer to mainstream schools; it referred to schools which the children were attending. Of course it did. I do not believe it is fair to pray this in aid and say that, on the basis of the survey, in the circumstances that I describe it is wrong to do what the Government propose to do and for the children of asylum seekers in accommodation centres to go to school in that sense. I do not believe for a moment that the survey can be held to dispose of that argument.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend give way? Some, if not a majority, of the schools to which he referred are open for children in the summer. The children can attend for two months or so. It is true that they do not receive formal lessons, but they have the advantage of being with other children. Does my noble friend agree?

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, my noble friend is right. I have experience of that in the city of Birmingham. But—I do not know and should like to find out—I wonder how often that applies to schools in rural areas. I believe it is less common in those areas. That is the point that I am making. I may be wrong but I suspect that I am not.
	There are two other assumptions behind the amendments and I have great doubts about what they seek to achieve. First, against the time-scales that I have already mentioned, there is an assumption that the children of asylum seekers will be able to integrate readily into what, for most of them, will be thoroughly strange surroundings. That will particularly be the case against the background, for many, of the most traumatic experience of being trafficked halfway across this planet in order to reach the United Kingdom so that their parents can claim asylum. In the first weeks of arrival in a totally different culture which is alien to their experiences, I question whether they will find it easy to integrate. I believe there must be at least some argument that they will fare better—certainly in the initial weeks—by being among children from their own backgrounds while they adjust to the different, strange and foreign surroundings. Their new environment will be all those things to children from remote countries. I believe that that is a factor in this issue.
	The second point that I want to make is tied up with the first. There is an assumption that somehow in the accommodation centres we offer security, safety and sanctuary to parents. But then we say, "Well, the children won't be able to enjoy that for the length of time that adults can because we are going to take them away and put them into mainstream schools". We shall leave aside the question of how near the mainstream schools might be. They will certainly not be around the corner from the sites that the Government have in mind for the accommodation centres. I wonder about a family that, again, has been trafficked halfway across the world. It arrives at an accommodation centre and is then split up. It is no good saying to a tiny child who has been dragged halfway across the world in those circumstances, "It's all right. You're coming back tonight". That runs the risk of introducing even more problems than those with which they must already cope.
	I turn to my final point. I hope that your Lordships will not mind my reminding the House of when we last debated the issue. On that occasion I mentioned to the then Minister that I hoped very much that, if the Government were successful in their ambition to establish accommodation centres and to provide education within those centres for children, there would be real and live links between the schools in those centres and the schools in the surrounding areas.
	I am happy to say that I have a letter from the Minister of State at the Home Office, Beverley Hughes, who has assured me that,
	"there is much to be gained from fostering links".
	She continues:
	"Officials in the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills have already begun discussions with local authorities in the areas where we have submitted planning notifications or where we will shortly be doing so. We will specify in the contract that we want links to be developed with the local schools",
	and so on.
	That is extremely important because the centres will not be segregated in the sense that they will be behind high wire fences. At least there is the intention that there will be exchanges between the education provision in the centres and the local schools. I acknowledge that that does not dispose of the arguments, but there are some countervailing arguments that, in my view, are just as powerful on behalf of the child as the arguments put forward by those who support the amendment and say that it is in the best interests of the children to put them straight into mainstream schools.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the reason that he did not attend the meeting last night, at which he could have debated these matters as there was no one putting forward the Government's point of view, was that it was not about asylum but about refugees. I imagine that my invitation is the same as his. It says:
	"The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill would force traumatised children and families claiming asylum into isolated 'Accommodation Centres'".
	I believe that the noble Lord must have missed that point.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I believe that we have the same leaflet, but I am mixed up about which meeting it was. It was another meeting. I e-mailed—I hesitate to say who, although it may have been Save the Children—to make that particular point and asked why the expression "refugee children" was being used when referring to children of asylum seekers. I apologise to the organisers of the meeting.

Earl Russell: My Lords, as this matter has become so dominant I shall take a few minutes to put it right. The word "refugee" in the UN convention and in the UNHCR handbook applies to anyone from the moment he or she makes his or her claim for asylum. That was the law and it was upheld by the Appellate Committee of this House in a judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, in 1993. The position changed with a single remark made obiter by Lord Justice Simon Brown in the case of Ex parte B in 1996. Only since then has the distinction between refugees and asylum seekers come into British law. People were using language in a form that was only six years out of date.
	I also believe that the noble Lord is a little pessimistic about the chances of asylum seeker children in mainstream schools. He forgets the extraordinary adaptability of children when they want to be adaptable. When I had been in the United States for three weeks one of my graduate students rang up. My son picked up the phone and the graduate student later asked me, "Who was the American boy who answered the call?"
	I have mentioned before a Kosovar family known to me. Their daughter, who was 12 when she arrived, has now been in a mainstream school for one year and speaks English rather better than I do. She is developing an intriguing combination of the intellect of David Starkey and the manners of the Queen and she devours the publications of the National Portrait Gallery with the greatest assiduity. I believe that there are many more such cases than the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, is aware of.
	In reply to many of my amendments the Minister said that he would reflect on the matter during the summer. We too were capable of reflection during the summer. On 10th July at col. 704 I gave warning of the possibility that we may do so. I thank the Minister and his officials for the courtesy with which they have helped us in a good many meetings, but the reasons are not known to the House so I need to describe them to a certain extent.
	When the Bill was in the Commons my honourable friend Mr Hughes, with the agreement of the whole party, was concerned, as we remain, to shorten the time that people spend in accommodation centres. He accepted an offer from the Home Secretary to trade off a guarantee of not longer than six months in accommodation centres for acceptance of this educational proposal. In Committee it was my task to probe that undertaking. The Minister gave replies that I could best describe as sincere but not robust. We understand the reasons for that. The general feeling in the width of colloquy on our Benches afterwards was, "Do not shoot the Minister, he is doing his best". I know something about the posts from Tirana, for example. They are not unique on this subject.
	Our anxieties began with some questions asked by my noble friend Lord Greaves, especially in a concluding intervention in the Minister's speech. The words "separate but equal" are rightly of ill omen on this subject, but speaking as one who regards Cambridge as the other place on both sides of the Atlantic, I say that the situation, although improbable, is not impossible.
	My noble friend's question showed that, although qualified teachers were to be employed, not all the teaching was to be done by them. Some of it would be carried out by assistants and some by parents. There was to be no responsibility for the LEA, which may have monitored common standards. The job was to be given to contractors who, it is clear, would be under instructions to save money. So there is no mechanism by which common standards can be obtained.
	Here we engage the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I understand, and the Minister will remind us, that this country has made a reservation to that convention relating to the children in this country who are not British nationals, but the UN committee that is monitoring our compliance with the convention at the moment has ruled that that reservation is contrary to the convention itself. We have to look at Article 2.2 of the convention and take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents. If we do not have a mechanism for monitoring a common standard of teaching we cannot ensure that that is done. That has caused my honourable friend Mr Hughes a good deal of anxiety and that concern runs right across the party.
	Another matter that has altered the position since we discussed it in July is the sudden withdrawal of the right to work. There is no guaranteed right to support outside accommodation centres. If a person is in a position where he or she does not have a right to support or the right to work, early discharge from an accommodation centre begins to appear a rather less attractive prize. The argument against segregation in education correspondingly carries more weight. That weight has been helped inside the Government as well. A human rights report of the Foreign Office of 2002 states:
	"School segregation is a particularly severe form of racial discrimination against the Roma in some Central and Eastern European countries and for children of asylum seekers in the UK, and has been highlighted ... by the EU".
	When I consider the policy of my own Government compared with East European treatment of the Roma, I am ashamed.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, no one has so far asked the vitally important question: what is best for the child? I cannot believe that the situation envisaged by the Government addresses that point. I was enormously pleased to hear the views of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on this vitally important point. I am not sure that the amendments they have tabled are entirely right, but the underlying principle is enormously important. There is nothing in the Bill which is more important than the rights of the child.
	My noble friend Lord Corbett has assumed that the amendment places an obligation to send a child to the appropriate school. I do not think that he is right about that. There is no obligation. But it is certainly a principle which can be embraced by parents if they so choose. For the most part, the young people will benefit by being among people of the same age.
	I went to the meeting last night which has been referred to. I should like to quote some of the things which were said which are highly relevant to this debate. Brigid Jackson-Dooley of a primary school in Newham said:
	"As children we get one chance at it. We get one chance at being a five-year old, a six-year old, a seven, an eight, a nine-year old. As an adult we get many more opportunities".
	She is absolutely right. These young people avail themselves of the opportunity to their advantage. But if it is not to their advantage they are not forced to go there. Marian Rosen of another primary school in Newham said:
	"You can come into my playground and you'll find it very difficult to pick out who the asylum seeker children are".
	That is the whole point. They benefit enormously from being among their own. That is what the Government provisions seek to deny.
	Someone said that the teachers have not been listened to. But is there anyone here or outside who is supportive of the Government's position? I may be wrong, but I challenge my noble friend to indicate who thinks the Government are right about this issue.
	I return to what I said before: what is best for the child? No one in this House regards them as the enemies of the state. They are innocents; they are young people who have come here, mostly with their parents. They should not feel trapped. At the moment too many of them do.
	My noble friend Lord Corbett raised an important point. He asked: what does one do in the summer when the schools are closed? I think more schools should be open. In the area where I live many schools are open for the children to come and play. They learn from playing with each other. I note my noble friend, who is also a personal friend, nods his head in approbation of that. We do not think enough about the children of the asylum seekers. There is nothing more comforting for them than to be able, if they wish, to go to school, to be among people of the same age, to play with them and to be part of them.

Lord Chan: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly share with your Lordships what seven young refugee children said to some of us this morning; it confirms what has been said. These seven young people came from Kosovo, Afghanistan, Kenya and Nigeria. They said that they had three advantages from being educated in local schools. First, it helped them to forget the trauma they had undergone before they arrived here. Secondly, being able to get up in the morning and go to school gave them a sense of normal childhood rather than being stigmatised as refugees and separated from other children. Thirdly, they said that even if they were to remain in this country for a short period they would always be thankful for what they had learned in our schools.
	Finally, when I asked them about their aspirations, more than half said that they wanted to go back to their home countries and remain our friends.

Lord Bhatia: My Lords, I moved the amendment in Committee and continue to hope sincerely that the Government will respond to the powerful arguments they have heard over recent months, and are hearing again today, by reversing their proposals for segregated education. Nearly 60 years after the introduction of the Education Act 1944, it would be deeply regrettable if a Labour Government decided that school-based education should not be universally available and that a child's immigration status should determine whether or not they could attend mainstream school.
	I should like to touch on a couple of areas that I raised during the debate in Committee. First, there has been some debate about whether it is acceptable to keep a child off mainstream school for two weeks, two months, six months or nine months. There is only one straightforward answer to this question: each day that a child is not in a mainstream school is a day lost. Splitting hairs over two or six months is absolutely beside the point. It not only harms a child's development not to be in school, but it is also utterly wrong in principle.
	That view is endorsed by the DfES, which, in last year's education Green Paper, stated:
	"Every passing day when a child is not able to fulfil their potential is another day lost, not only to that child but to the whole community".
	The Government's supposed "concession" that after six months the education of children in accommodation centres would be reviewed is, therefore, no concession at all, and does not affect the principle arguments against this policy.
	Secondly, the Home Office asserts that asylum seekers are exacerbating the predicament of overburdened local schools. It has painted an inaccurate picture of schools whose problems are caused by an influx of asylum-seeking children. We need only to listen to the fierce condemnation of the Government's plans by the major teaching unions to realise that this picture is misleading and perhaps opportunistic. If children have particular needs, the answer is not to set them apart but to find effective and non-discriminatory ways of meeting those needs.
	The inclusion of refugee children in mainstream schools can present a substantial challenge to individual schools, teachers and LEAs. The inclusion of other groups of homeless children and children whose first language is not English can bring similar challenges. The answer is not to segregate groups of children who are viewed as problematic but to ensure that adequate and appropriate resources are available to support schools and teachers to build on and share the good practice that has already been developed. The alternative is a downward spiral of marginalisation.
	In short, refugee asylum children are not the only children who present challenges to schools, but they are the only group for whom the Government believe the solution to be segregation.
	Schools that have a significant minority of children seeking asylum view them not as a burden but as an asset. Earlier today, teachers, parents and children came to Parliament to lobby noble Lords to reject the Government's plans for segregated education. They demonstrated powerfully the solidarity that they feel with refugee children. They made it clear that it is not them—those who actually teach and learn with refugee children—who wish them out of their schools.
	The head teacher of one school stresses how the whole school benefits from the presence of children seeking asylum. As was cited earlier, the head teacher challenges others to go to playgrounds and to try to pick out the refugee children from the others playing there, stating that other pupils,
	"learn a great deal from them and develop knowledge, respect and acceptance which improves their own understanding of the world around them and their educational opportunities, and prepares them to be good citizens of a multi-cultural society".
	So there is also much educational opportunity to be gained from those refugee and asylum children for the children of this country.
	Thirdly, barring some children from our schools clearly violates their rights. We listened to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, speak about Article 2B of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which sets out a child's right to be educated,
	"on the basis of equal opportunity",
	and states that,
	"different forms of secondary education",
	should be,
	"available and accessible to every child".
	Article 2 makes clear that the rights within it must apply to all children without discrimination. Article 3 states:
	"in all actions concerning children ... the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration".
	I strongly dispute any assertion that the best interests of the child are guiding this policy.
	In its report on the Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights stated:
	"We understand the disquiet which has been expressed at the prospect of removing the children of destitute asylum-seekers residing in accommodation centres from mainstream schools, and educating them separately in accommodation centres. It gives rise to troubling echoes of historical educational regimes in some other countries where children were educated separately on the basis of race or colour, under the now discredited pretence that the separate provision was equal. Separate education on the basis of ethnicity or national origin breeds and entrenches social and educational inequality, and inhibits or even deters integration".
	Finally, the seriousness of the proposal is reflected in the breadth and vehemence of the opposition to it. All the major children's charities have come together with leading refugee organisations and teaching unions to denounce the plans. Professionals and organisations that work with children day in, day out have rejected every one of the Government's defences of the policy. The opposition includes Save the Children, the Transport and General Workers' Union and the National Union of Teachers. I submit to the Home Office that when organisations with such a range and wealth of experience and expertise tell the Government that they have got it wrong, they would be well advised to listen rather than to plough on regardless.
	It will be hugely regrettable if those unnecessary elements of the Bill are allowed to stand. They will undermine any claim that the Government may make to the promoting the values of respect, tolerance, diversity and non-discrimination in the United Kingdom. We need to pause to consider whether we should sit here and talk about technicalities of the law—important though that is—or whether we should think about vulnerable children whose parents for all kinds of right reasons have brought them to this country. Those children are already asylum seekers and/or refugees. They have managed to escape brutality—and, perhaps, torture and death. They came here because their parents thought that they would be safe in a democratic country such as Britain, where law and fairness were two sides of the same coin.
	We are in real danger of creating legislation that defies some international protocols to which we have signed up and being unfair to a group of unfortunate people who have come here to seek protection and fairness. How could we arbitrarily not only insist that children who accompany their parents have to be placed in isolated accommodation centres—which will, whether we like it or not, be seen as prisons or detention centres—but also impose the condition that children are not fit to go to the school to which everyone else goes but will be segregated and put into a separate school?
	Human rights advocates have clearly stated their disapproval of that provision. The Joint Human Rights Committee also does not like it. Seven major children's agencies that work closely with children in this country and elsewhere have all said clearly that they do not support the setting up of special schools in accommodation centres. Trade unions have also attacked that provision. Last but not least, the National Union of Teachers has said that it will cost up to £60 million to set up such special facilities, which are currently available in mainstream schools. It says that the plan is ethically unacceptable and an economic nonsense—that a crisis has been created where no problem existed. The question of where those children are educated could have been solved by the application of common sense rather than by a morally objectionable solution.
	I strongly beseech your Lordships and the Minister to read the report of the Asylum Coalition, to which reference may well already have been made. It is entitled Asylum City and has been produced by an independent firm of consultants. The introduction is written by no less a person than Bill Morris, general secretary of the TGWU who, I understand, is close to the Labour Party and the Government. He states:
	"How a country treats those who turn to it in times of need says much about its history, its values and its people. The history, values and people of this nation reveal that we have traditionally treated refugees with dignity and kindness and stood by our international obligations.
	Yet, our government now appears ready to turn its back on this tradition. Britain now stands on the threshold of setting up a parallel universe, one created to ensure that asylum seekers remain separated from our society".
	Bill Morris has also written to me personally, stating:
	"However, it is the issue of education provision that causes us most concern. The Government claims that provision in accommodation centres will be equivalent to that provided in mainstream schools. Nevertheless, given the wide range in ages of the children concerned, with educational needs ranging from nursery right through to secondary, it is difficult to envisage how government can make good on this commitment. Classes will either have to be very small, or more likely, as Asylum City states, 5-10 year olds will be 'taught in a single class, which is neither educationally nor developmentally appropriate'. A similar situation could also occur with secondary school-aged children with the result that 'such an arrangement would not be sufficient to provide provision equivalent to mainstream education, as stated by the government'.
	Segregated education provision cannot be justified on any grounds. It is discriminatory and benefits neither those children who are forcibly set apart, nor those who remain in mainstream schools. Moreover, it is unnecessary, with neither teachers nor communities calling for this measure.
	In excluding refugee children from local schools, the Government will take a step backwards in its progress towards a more inclusive Britain, and we share the United Nations' fears that this policy will worsen the position of some of the most vulnerable children in our society".
	In the end, everything comes down to law and fairness. The clause seems to ignore the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and is manifestly unfair to the children. Surely, your Lordships, including the Ministers, cannot allow such things to happen. There is a danger that there will be a lose-lose situation for everyone. We must give children the education that they deserve and the fairness that they demand. Above all, we must not tinker with the rights of vulnerable children.

Lord Judd: My Lords, the hour is late, noble Lords will be waiting for their dinner. However, the people about whom we are talking are waiting to know their fate.
	There might have been a case for flexibility. Unfortunately, the terms of the Bill preclude such flexibility. The Bill states:
	"For the purposes of section 13 of the Education Act (1996)...a resident of an accommodation centre shall not be treated as part of the population of a local education authority's area".
	It also says:
	"A child who is a resident of an accommodation centre may not be admitted to a maintained school or a maintained nursery".
	That hardly sets a context for flexibility.
	My noble friend the Minister must deal seriously this evening with the issue to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred. Who will do the teaching in the accommodation centres? What guarantees will we have about the quality of what is to be provided? Will we find that the job is subcontracted to a bidder who will provide a minimal service and little commitment to quality of content?
	It worries me that we are forgetting the turmoil and trauma that the children are in. If we are to lock them into schools in the very premises in which there is an atmosphere of anxiety, uncertainty and, often, desperation, it will hardly be an opportunity for creative education. It is essential that such vulnerable children, who have been through God knows what, as has been said, should have an opportunity to be educated somewhere where creativity, imagination and positive values can operate.
	What are we saying to the youngsters in our society? Are we suggesting that we should deprive them of the opportunity of welcoming into their midst youngsters who are facing so many difficulties and of demonstrating the spontaneous compassion and concern that I do not doubt will often be there? Our children will build their sense of value in the way in which they mix with the children who find themselves in the predicament of being in an accommodation centre.
	I could say more, but I shall conclude now. I am sorry if my final observation is rather emotional. I must say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that, as someone who has been a member of the Labour Party for 51 years, I never believed, in my whole time in the Labour movement, that, in a Bill being put forward by a Labour government, I would read the following words:
	"For the purposes of section 13 of the Education Act (1996)...a resident of an accommodation centre shall not be treated as part of the population of a local education authority's area...A child who is a resident of an accommodation centre may not be admitted to a maintained school or a maintained nursery".
	What has the movement of which I have been proud to be a member been about? It has been about inclusiveness, not exclusiveness. It has been about compassion and concern. It has been about our primary commitment to the well-being of the children in our midst. We are talking about children, and we are talking about the principle of inclusivity. The relevant subsections in the Bill are a disgrace. I shall support the amendment tonight.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I sponsored the meeting last night that has been referred to in so many speeches this evening. I was immensely impressed by the meeting. There were teachers, parents, children and people who had themselves been refugees. They spoke with one voice about the amendment. Noble Lords have heard already how the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth got a standing ovation.
	I am afraid that the people at the meeting had too many expectations of us. They seemed to think that we could throw the whole Bill out. They seemed to think that we could get rid of the present Home Secretary. There were one or two other things that they wanted us to do, and I had to point out that they were not really on the agenda for today. However, on the subject that we are discussing in the context of the amendment, they were absolutely wholehearted. They spoke with immense authority and told us that accepting the amendment would be for the good of the children in the camps and the children in the schools. They said that it would be to the benefit of the parents of both sets of children and of the teachers in our country. I beg the House to accept the amendment.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I would not like my noble friends Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Judd to think that they stood alone in saying that the clause is a disgrace. It is a source of shame to us that we should take a Bill that includes such discrimination through the House.
	Many have spoken in great detail about the subsections and the way in which they contravene human rights. We should not do this to the children of asylum seekers. It means that the children in our schools will lose out in learning lessons of tolerance and in the transmission of the values that we think matter. The words of my noble friend Lord Judd should be listened to by everyone in the House, but particularly by those on these Benches.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I shall be brief. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, for revealing that he was not present at the meeting last night; I had imagined that I was the only person in your Lordships' House who had not been there. Some of us on these Benches must balance the claims of Bournemouth against the claims of your Lordships' House. I have, however, been given a comprehensive picture of what transpired at the meeting by the speeches of several noble Lords. I have also seen the Save the Children briefing.
	I shall not rehearse the arguments of the educationists who spoke about the desirability of having asylum children in mainstream schooling or about the adaptability of such children. My three sons spent three years in schools and playgroups in two countries outside this one. The eldest boy was four, when he went abroad, and the youngest was a year old. At five, my eldest grandson has just enthusiastically entered a school in the closed society of the Forest of Dean, where the teacher explained to my daughter-in-law that not only had all the children been together in playgroups and nursery school, but they had all known each other since birth. My grandson is, therefore, a total outsider.
	I have been conscious—in a spirit of which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would approve—of the flexibility in which the Government's plans for these children have evolved since the Secretary of State said in February that God forbid anyone should be in an accommodation centre for six months.
	The noble Lord, Lord Judd, raised some suspicions about the quality of the teaching. I can only say, having followed the text of these debates, that the Government's position has steadily evolved in a constructive manner in that regard.
	I have re-read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, in Committee, and I follow its logic. He reminded us in the final paragraph that there are 62,000 asylum children in London alone. I have never been one to question the motivation of others, but against the universality of adverse educational opinion I am left wondering whether the Government embarked on this project to make the placing of accommodation centres in rural areas more acceptable to the indigenous population of those rural areas. Given the primacy of the children's needs, I hope that my suspicions are misplaced.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Carnegy hit the nail on the head when she said that the Government are in a muddle over this policy. It stems from the fact that they have chosen as a model of policy "one size fits all" or "one policy fits all sizes". Children are not like that.
	I was also concerned to learn about the muddle between departments. This had not come to my notice before today. The Refugee Children's Consortium kindly gave me a copy of the extract from the Foreign Office's annual human rights report in 2002. It would be helpful if the Minister, either tonight or at a later stage, could explain why there appears to be a difference of opinion between the FCO and the Home Office on the segregation of the children of asylum seekers from mainstream schooling. It would be most helpful to hear from the Minister with responsibilities in the Department for Education and Skills whether there is a difference of view.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth argued his case forcefully, as he always does. I shall listen carefully to the Minister. The Government have some deep thinking to do on this series of amendments. It would be helpful to the House to discover whether we can resolve the issue today or whether the Government will take it back and give it deeper thought.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, at the risk of being flippant—no pressure then. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Filkin for giving me the opportunity to respond to the education part of your Lordships' deliberations today. I recognise that in the course of what I want to say I need to address many concerns. I need to acknowledge what we can agree on and explain what we are trying to achieve, in what context, based on what evidence. I need to outline the opportunities our plans present and to offer the guarantees your Lordships seek. But, more than anything, from listening to the debate, I need to address the rage your Lordships rightly feel when dealing with what I would classify in part as misunderstandings about the system.
	I shall deal with those misunderstandings in detail, but perhaps I may briefly outline some of them. Clause 35 of the Bill enables a child, at the request of those running education, to be educated outside of an accommodation centre. We anticipate that a child with severe special educational needs, who needs a special school education, would be automatically given the right, under a local education authority assessment, to go to a special school. The right could apply to a gifted and talented child for whom provision would best be made elsewhere. It could apply also to a child with an exceptional command of English. The clause allows for that.
	The other misunderstanding concerns teachers. We would not allow children in this country to be taught other than by qualified teachers or other teachers allowed to teach in any school. The system must mirror the education outside. I shall deal with the other misunderstandings as we progress, but I wanted to outline those at the start.
	I should welcome any opportunity your Lordships may seek—either individually or together—to address before Third Reading any concerns that I fail to deal with adequately today. Had I or my noble friend Lord Filkin had the privilege of being invited to the meeting last evening, we would happily have spoken to the group of 86 people. The group clearly had the advantage of the eloquence of the right reverend Prelate, but it might have benefited also from the opportunity—I certainly would have benefited from it—of my addressing the group.
	Perhaps I may turn now to the report referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia. I have enormous respect for the noble Lord and I have had the good fortune through Project Fullemploy to watch his work over many years. However, I am concerned that when we see reports we should have the opportunity to correct some of the misunderstandings, if I may so describe them, within them. I also—I say this from the heart—have concerns about any document that chooses for its front cover the fingers of a child going through a wire fence to indicate—emotively in my view—what we are trying to do. That is something that is so far from the concept I have in mind as to be unimaginable.
	As for Mr Bill Morris—who is not only a member of the Labour Party but one of my dearest friends—I shall, with delight, be talking to him in the next few days about his misunderstandings of what we are seeking to do.
	I have had the privilege of meeting with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and I hope that I can repeat today some of the matters that he raised with me and which I hope I was able to address, at least in part.
	In the Second Reading debate, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who is not in his place, asked us to look at what is happening through the eyes of a child. It is of course the best and only place to start. I agree with every noble Lord who has said that the needs of our children are paramount. We are all agreed that the children who come to us, often in the most difficult of circumstances, need our help and care. Those who stay will be a huge resource to our country, economically, socially and culturally. They are to be cherished. They are not a burden.
	We are all united in our worry for them—worry for what they have experienced; for the families lost and torn apart; for the loss of their friends and toys; for the loss of the sights and smells and familiarity of their surroundings; and sometimes for the loss of their childhood. We are all agreed that we must do everything we can to help and support them. Nowhere is that more focused than in education.
	The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to the issues of trauma and the concerns about children who may be traumatised being together. There are many schools of thought, but it is very clear that if appropriate and adequate support is provided we can help children to support each other. In education we are all agreed that we want our children to succeed—all our children—and to create successful schools everywhere, supporting our teachers, our staff, our children, our parents and our families.
	One of the biggest political challenges we will face in the future arises from the fact that some parts of our planet are on the move. Some 168 million people now live in a country other than the one in which they were born. They form only 2.8 per cent of the world's population, but the figure is rising. When you put that back into our education system, it means that we should prepare the children and their families who arrive here for our education system.
	When I look at the issue of ethnic minority attainment in this country, time and again I hear stories of families who simply do not know the expectations of our education system. Families who believe that when a child moves from year eight to year nine it is because they have passed an exam, not because they have got a year older. That says a great deal about what work we have to do in the department to support and help our children. It highlights the fact that we have to prepare our families as well as our children so that they can support their children too.
	We must recognise the needs of every child. We must provide the support for new children, who may need specialist advice. Trauma counselling has been mentioned. Language support is another need. Children may be gifted and talented and may need additional support from our education service.
	We must make sure, too, that we have a stable education system, schools that are constantly striving to improve and develop standards for all the children in their care, teachers and staff who are able to offer the best to the children in their schools; and we must provide stability for all the children, for the teachers, and for the families.
	I believe that the diversity of our country is perhaps our greatest asset. We have a lot more to do in education to support children from ethnic minority communities. Ofsted has recently produced reports on the best primary and secondary schools. They tell us of the characteristics of those schools which are most successful in raising the attainment of all children. There are no hidden formulae. They are about leadership and high expectations for every child. They are about children who say: the teachers look me in the eye; they have made the curriculum relevant.
	For some of our schools there are truly great challenges simply in terms of language. In Haringey, 190 languages are spoken; in one school, 45 are spoken. All these challenges are in the context of being responsible for the national languages strategy. All these assets can be to the benefit of all children.
	In meeting the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, yesterday, I met also a teacher from a school in London that has a very high reputation. The teacher talked about her work with children from different backgrounds, many from refugee families. She talked about trauma counselling and about the work to celebrate the diversity of these children's families, and much more. It is a school that does well and is one from which we can learn. But it is a school that says that it does not know on Monday quite who will be in the classroom. Many schools that do not have the expertise and experience of that particular school talk of the difficulty, not merely for the school but for the transient children, children who do not know where they will be next week.
	This is not about overcrowding; it is about what happens in some of our schools when children are there for a short time and then leave and new children arrive who have different language needs and different requirements and are without that kind of support.
	In March 2002, Ofsted published the findings of a study into the effects of pupil mobility. I quote:
	"The practical business of dealing with a new intake of pupils, interviewing parents and pupils, updating records, organising induction and providing equipment and material is time-consuming. Dealing with a steady trickle of newcomers from insecure and disadvantaged backgrounds is especially demanding. Some children arriving at school are emotionally unsettled and need exceptional levels of support. Amongst other things, they have been separated from friends or from families. Some have very little experience of schooling".
	There is no doubt that there are schools that cope well and children who cope well; and there are schools and children who do not—not least because some schools do not have the resources to do so. I do not necessarily mean funding; I mean people and resources—translation services, assessments and so on. We know that the new arrivals can be bewildered. They can certainly be bullied and unhappy, and their families can be unsure of how to support them in a strange education system.
	The aspiration for accommodation centres has been well set out by my noble friend. I shall not go into areas that are for him to discuss with the House. I want to talk about the opportunity that we might have in piloting the provision of education for the children who may be staying in the centres. I am not talking about an education that will be inferior. I am not talking about anything less than the best that we can offer such children.
	My first point is that the children who will be with us in the accommodation centres are those waiting to know whether they will be staying in this country or leaving it. Their lives are in transition. Our job is to support them through that transition and to provide them with education. For those who are to stay, we are all united in the belief that they should be put into the school system and the housing in which they will be living, and be allowed to put down the roots that they need as quickly as possible.
	We want children to get the best experience that they can from the education that we shall provide in the accommodation centres and to be prepared for the move to a school that will be local to where they will live. I see it as the way in which I prepared my children to enter school when they were four, as no doubt other noble Lords did. It was not about arriving on one day; it was a process over weeks of learning about the school and what it was like to be at school, in the same way as schools help to prepare children for secondary education and beyond.
	So what can be done in the accommodation centres? What are the guarantees? First, we shall be able to learn quickly about the educational attainment of the children and plan for their education for the future—we can help them to catch up if need be; we can support those who are gifted and talented; we can provide language sessions to support their English.
	Secondly, as noble Lords who have studied this matter have pointed out, we can offer education throughout the year. Those who arrive in July will not need to wait until September to start accessing education. Education will be provided for them.
	Thirdly, we shall be able to concentrate support on those who need time and space to deal with the trauma that they may have experienced. Their families—this is important for reasons that I have stated—will be able to learn about the education system and learn how to support them. We have always said that we want them to make links to schools and that students on particular courses will be able to access, for example, further education colleges if that is appropriate. Those who are post-16 will be dealt with by the Learning and Skills Council. We will deliver the national curriculum in a way that reflects the fact that children will be arriving at different times and tailor courses to their needs, particularly in the development of English language skills.
	I want those who teach in the accommodation centres to bring their expertise, to enhance it and to take it back. I want Ofsted—

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I am not clear from what she has said so far quite what it is that those of us who support the amendment have not understood. I wonder whether she can confirm that all the teachers' unions and, I believe, the education officers who have been consulted by the Government are of the view that the children of asylum seekers would do better in mainstream schools. The Minister has told us many of the strengths of her education system. Could not those strengths be extended to children in the accommodation centres, not least at a time when it is recognised that they would benefit greatly from many of the strengths of the system that the Minister has so eloquently described?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the issue for us is about children in transition. We are not talking about children given leave to stay here remaining in accommodation centres. As I see it, some of the misunderstandings have been based on the assumption that this is a segregated system for children for a long period of time. This is about the children who do not yet know whether they will be granted leave to remain in this country. As soon as they do know—

Earl Russell: My Lords, I am not aware that anyone who has taken part in the debate has stated the belief that they will be there for a long time. The noble Baroness listened to the debate on the previous amendment, which made clear our view that it should be otherwise.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, but having listened to the way in which this was described, it certainly came across to me that people have a misunderstanding of exactly whom we are describing. However, I accept the noble Earl's point and I shall not pursue it. I am suggesting that we are looking at a system that will support those children who are in transition and enable those who are allowed to stay in this country to enter mainstream education better equipped to deal with it.
	I shall be brief; I am aware of the hour. We want to make sure that those teachers who come into the centres to work with us will be qualified teachers; and that they will use and enhance the skills that they have already obtained and be able to return and use them in other schools. We want to make sure that the schools in the accommodation centres reflect the system at large.
	Ofsted will be inspecting the schools. They will be required to meet Ofsted's concerns and to be seen by Ofsted. We also want to make sure that local education authorities play a role. We are considering this carefully and discussing what it might be. For example, local education authorities may individually or in consortium take up the contract to provide education. We would not for one moment rule that out. That might address some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lords. I say again to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that we would expect local education authorities to assess special educational needs. They will assist the accommodation centres and decide whether a child needs to attend a special school.
	It is important to point out that Clause 35 enables children to be educated outside the centre if that is felt to be the most appropriate provision for them. Noble Lords raised issues of behaviour and other policies. These are schools. The model in my mind is of a village school; it is not in any way a "camp", a word that was used several times in your Lordships' House this evening.
	I want this to be a sound grounding for the future. It is not about segregation; it is about exploring and piloting. How do we best help, nurture and cherish the children who come to our country before we have decided whether they can stay here? It is about recognising that our society needs to find ways to support these children more effectively than we do now. It is about making sure that our education system supports all our children to the best of its ability. It is about making sure that children who stay arrive in a school with the best possible start. Your Lordships' House should support that.
	The pilots will be evaluated, and noble Lords will watch very carefully. It would be serious if we failed to achieve what I described.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does any teachers' body or other organisation—I asked this question in my speech—support the Government's position on this?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as yet I have had no debate on the matter with the teachers' unions, because at the time that the noble Lord refers to, the policy was not as well developed as it is now. We have addressed many of the concerns raised by noble Lords in Committee, which I sat through and to which I listened. We have looked very carefully at those matters. I would be happy to write to the noble Lord and to return to the issue at Third Reading when we have the opportunity to do so.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that children have one chance. We must get better at supporting children who come into our country, many of whom will stay but some of whom will not. What can we best do? I leave your Lordships' House with this question: is it not appropriate that we pilot new approaches on the basis of providing children with a high-quality education that may help to support them and bring them more effectively into our mainstream education system?

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for her contribution and to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, who spoke this morning on the BBC's "Today" programme. I thank them for their graciousness and thoroughness. This is a difficult issue, and the more I hear, the more I realise what a muddle we are in. Clause 34(2) states:
	"A child who is a resident of an accommodation centre may not be admitted to a maintained school or a maintained nursery".
	I am not by nature someone who goes out of his way to be awkward, an assertion that I am sure my two colleagues on the Front Bench will support. I am a very peaceful, loving person, but I really do find that all this rhetoric about misunderstanding increases the amount of fog. I know that the Government are in a hurry to get a Bill through, and it seems that the policy has been made and the educational package then created to fit into it. In my own discipline of theology, that constitutes good systematic theology, but it is not very good historical or pastoral theology, because that is when theology actually meets context and people. I am sure that there are parallels in history and sociology also. A mainstream school is where young children belong, whatever their race. That is where they will learn English.
	I have been travelling to Denmark every summer since I was a boy. I do not speak Danish fluently, but I can make the noises of that throat disease-type language quite convincingly. A right reverend Prelate in Danish is Deres Hjaervaerdighed—I will help the Hansard staff to get their pens around that. We learn English best by starting with it. There has been much talk tonight about special schools. I can only say to the Government that we want to hear more. My name has been on this amendment for 10 days, yet nobody asked me to come to talk to them, and I would be glad to talk to people about the matter. However, a considerable burden of communication and detail must get across to many people before the Bill as it stands will be owned by the people of this country, let alone the Members of this House.
	There are many small points that I could reply to, but the hour is late. I shall end with a quotation from the Foreign Office's Annual Human Rights Report 2002. It states:
	"School segregation is a particularly severe form of racial discrimination".
	With the greatest of respect, and with the greatest thanks to the Ministers for their patience with an awkward Prelate, I ask reluctantly if the opinion of the House can be tested.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 82.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 9.47 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Belarus

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the current situation in Belarus.
	My Lords, this is the first debate about Belarus in this House in recent times. Belarus may be a far away country to some Members of this House, but it is at the centre of Europe and I believe it is right that the current situation should be debated in this House today.
	In another place, Michael Trend has drawn the human rights abuses in Belarus to the attention of Ministers on a number of occasions. In my contribution tonight I wish to underscore the concerns raised by the honourable gentleman, but I also wish to probe the Government on the extent to which they are willing to act to draw Belarus back into the family of European nations where it rightly belongs.
	My comments tonight are made against a backdrop of deplorable human rights abuses, elections that failed to meet international standards and routine abuse of legal procedures, which undermines the rule of law. The catalogue of concerns will be known to my noble friend the Minister.
	In recent months I travelled to Minsk where I met the wives of some of those who have disappeared. I shall mention the former Interior Minister Yuri Zakharenko, the Belarus Supreme Soviet deputy Viktor Gonchar, Anatoly Krasovsky and the journalist, Dmitry Zavadsky. I also visited Professor Bandazhevsky, who is in prison in Minsk. I believe his case was raised by my right honourable friend Peter Hain when he was the Minister responsible. I can report to your Lordships that Professor Bandazhevsky is living in improved conditions and I regard it as a positive sign that the authorities let a delegation from the Council of Europe and myself visit him and that we freely discussed his case with senior Ministers. I also regard it as another positive sign that Andrei Klimov was released from prison in March this year.
	My starting point in probing the Government's current policy towards Belarus is that there are two clear positions with which I find it easy to agree. The first is that the people of Belarus deserve our support. Social projects, academic links and charitable links are all rightly supported by our Government. I believe that that support should be expanded where possible. The second position—again one that I support—is that nothing should be done to bolster or give any weight to the current regime, and particularly to President Lukashenko.
	The difficult question for the Government, on which I wish to probe my noble friend tonight, is the extent to which they are willing to act and co-operate with the institutions of Belarus while at the same time keeping the head of those institutions firmly at arm's length. I believe there are specific examples where a more constructive approach could—and I am realistic enough to use the word "could"—both show that we are serious in our belief in democracy, human rights and the rule of law and support those in the institutions of Belarus who wish to move towards the standards in which we believe.
	I have four specific proposals about which I have given my noble friend notice. My first proposal concerns the British Council office in Minsk. My noble friend will be familiar with this case, as the staffed office was closed in November 2000. I believe that the withdrawal of its office was a mistake, and I believe that the mistake should be rectified. I, like Members of both Houses, have heard the justification advanced by the FCO and the British Council that Belarus has a "relative lack of importance" when compared with other countries in the region. Such a view, I believe, fails to take our commitment to human rights sufficiently seriously and undervalues the disproportionate benefit of the British Council's work. I very much hope that my noble friend will urge her department to reconsider this decision.
	My second proposal concerns the OSCE's Advisory and Monitoring Group. My noble friend will be aware of the current lamentable position in which members of the AMG have effectively been expelled through the non-renewal of their visas, and that the AMG has now stopped all useful operations. While it is true that such behaviour only damages further the relations between Belarus and the international community, we cannot ignore the fact that these relations have been poor for a number of years. I would urge that either the OSCE's secretary-general or the current chairman in office visit Minsk and talk directly with President Lukashenko with a view to re-establishing the AMG as an effective vehicle for monitoring change within Belarus. It is not too late, and any change in personnel would, in any event, be routine.
	I understand that such a course of action has its pitfalls, but I would argue that the potential benefits of an effective and operational AMG outweigh any potential propaganda victory which President Lukashenko may seek to ascribe to himself.
	On a separate but related matter, I believe that it is hugely important that the institutions which interact with the Belarusian authorities behave fairly and observe their own rules. I make this comment with particular reference to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.
	My third proposal concerns the local government elections which are due in spring of next year. It is my understanding that various opposition groups will join together in their fight for these elections. This is a welcome development and I very much hope that it will serve as a springboard for a greater co-operation between opposition groupings in their political activities at higher levels. I think that this development gives an opportunity for organisations such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to support this political evolution through supporting programmes that enhance the democratic process. It should be noted, however, that recent opinion polls of public "confidence" in Belarus have ranked opposition parties well below other institutions. I very much hope that the opposition parties' authority grows as they coalesce and develop policies that are of relevance to people today rather than a total denial of every aspect of social and political life in Belarus.
	Local government elections are important in every country, but in Belarus they could be used both to generate confidence in the democratic process and as a vehicle for the opposition parties to show that they are serious in trying to gain the confidence of the Belarusian people.
	My fourth and final proposal is perhaps the most substantial, but also the least specific. Last week, I received a copy of a letter addressed to my right honourable friend Bruce George in his capacity as the current president of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. I received my copy as a member of the OSCE's ad hoc working group on Belarus. The letter is from the Helsinki Commission. It makes the usual points about the lack of legitimacy of the national assembly and the flawed election process in Belarus. Nevertheless, it does set out two clear steps that the national assembly can take to prove some independence from the current regime.
	The first step concerns acting on the recommendations of the OSCE/ODIHR report following last year's presidential elections, and the second step concerns appointing a credible independent commission of inquiry into the recent disappearances. In addition, the Political Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe has issued a similar roadmap in which it proposes joint seminars on policy matters such as education and social services with a view to improving concepts of governance.
	Members of the national assembly regularly attend and speak at international forums. I very much hope that they take the opportunities they have been given and assert their credentials as independent parliamentarians.
	I believe that there is a new awareness among some parliamentarians that they need to increase their powers if we in the West are to regard them as fellow parliamentarians on the European stage. We should help them along this road. I shall therefore put my fourth proposal in the form of a question to my noble friend: to what extent does she believe that we can support members of the national assembly to learn and act on their role as parliamentarians in Europe?
	Belarus sees itself as at the heart of Europe. Its sense of history is unlike any other country I have visited. The armies of Napoleon and Hitler marched across its plains and left a terrible legacy that plays a large part in the way Belarusians see themselves today. In a very few years, the borders of NATO and the EU will be at the border of Belarus, and this encourages the Belarusians' belief that not only are they at the heart of Europe but that they are at the fulcrum point between East and West.
	This view, however, is a delusion. It is a delusion because today's communications mean that Belarus will be isolated in its economic and social development. It is a delusion because I believe that Russia itself rightly sees its future as part of the family of European nations. And it is a delusion because the standards of human rights, democracy, the rule of law and economic liberalisation will surround Belarus—so that, far from being at the heart of Europe, it will be a hollow centre only of interest to those who monitor rogue states such as Iraq and North Korea.
	It is in no one's interest that Belarus should continue along this path. I very much hope that our Government, with others, will work with whom it can to avoid such a fate for the people of Belarus.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on securing this debate on Belarus. Any opportunity to bring the increasingly worrying situation in that country to a wider audience is most welcome. It is essential that we speak out publicly and often to condemn tyranny and oppression wherever we find it. In another place, in July, the Minister agreed that Belarus was,
	"a police state going to the bad".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/07/02; col. 228WH.]
	He was unable to bring news of any improvements in Belarus since the presidential elections just over a year ago, and I do not imagine that the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, is in a position to bring any cheer either. In fact, the opposite is true. If anything, over the past year the situation has grown worse and there has been a further deterioration in the democratic and human rights position, with an increase in state control and power concentrated in Mr Lukashenko's hands.
	I quote from Amnesty International's 2002 report, which was published after the presidential elections that led to President Lukashenko's re-election:
	"Human rights defenders faced harassment and intimidation. Executions of people sentenced to death continued to be carried out in secret and without prior notification to the relatives".
	Those events are not taking place in a faraway country on the other side of the world. They are happening within the borders of Europe and almost on the border of the European Union itself, when its western neighbour, Poland, already a member of NATO, becomes a full member of the EU. Following the fall of his friend Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia, President Lukashenko has assumed the unenviable status of our continent's most despotic and tyrannical leader. As Europe's last dictator, he governs through the policies of oppression and intimidation, and of injustice and corruption. Drug trafficking and crime are rife. The rule of fear and the rule of repression have vanquished the rule of law in Belarus.
	Ministers have spoken of the need for "the torch of liberty" to be lit for Belarus. I agree. Our duty is to ensure that Mr Lukashenko and his comrades are not allowed to think for one day that they can escape the bright glare of that torch and continue to lead Belarus backwards. That is the message that this debate should send to Belarus today.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, mentioned, opposition politicians are harassed and have, in some cases, been subject to politically motivated legal proceedings. Ministers sacked from the government have frequently found themselves harassed or jailed. Some have "disappeared". These "disappearances" of key political opponents, unresolved and uninvestigated, are deeply perturbing. The Belarusian authorities have failed to investigate satisfactorily the disappearances of several opposition members and journalists. The former Belarusian Minister of Internal Affairs, Yury Zakharenko, a deputy of Belarus's 13th Supreme Soviet, Viktor Gonchar, and the television cameraman Dmitry Zavadsky are among the "disappeared". There are also Belarusian prisoners of conscience, imprisoned for no other reason than their opposition to Mr Lukashenko.
	The use of the security forces to crush dissent has become increasingly ruthless. Last year, the BBC reported on the allegations that a death squad working for the country's senior leadership had assassinated key political opponents. Such allegations had been made before, but this time the claim was made by two former staff members of the state prosecutor's office. They sought asylum in America and the US State Department declared their allegations credible. I trust that the British Government are also pursuing these claims.
	Restrictions on freedom of speech, peaceful assembly and movement have increased, and only this week new threats to freedom of religion have emerged through the approval of a draft Bill, requiring the registration of religious communities. A week ago today, the Upper House of Parliament in Belarus gave overwhelming approval to a Bill on religion which would severely restrict the activities of smaller denominations and which stresses the dominant role of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Bill bans organised prayer by religious communities of fewer than 20 people and prohibits religions active in Belarus for less than 20 years from publishing literature or setting up missions. It introduces compulsory registration of religious communities as well as other restrictions on religious freedoms in the country, posing a threat to Protestant churches and non-traditional religious movements in Belarus. President Lukashenko is expected to sign the Bill into law this week.
	Additionally, the authorities have stepped up their campaign of harassment against the independent media and severely restricted the constitutional right to a free press. The case of the two journalists Mikola Markevich and Pavel Mazheiko of the independent regional newspaper Pahonya, based in Grodno, illustrates the continuing series of undemocratic measures undertaken by the Lukashenko regime. They were convicted of libelling Mr Lukashenko during last year's presidential election campaign and in June were sentenced to serve two and a half years and two years respectively in a detention camp. Pahonya has now been closed down, its journalists arrested, and other publications are under threat. Similarly, last month the journalist Viktor Ivashkevich was sentenced to two years of "restricted freedom" on the same charge of allegedly insulting President Lukashenko during last year's presidential election campaign.
	What is the solution and what can we do? I believe there is a vitally important role for Russia to play. Belarus has relied and continues to rely heavily on moral, political and financial support from Russia. The relationship has been one of amicable mutual expediency. Only last September, President Putin congratulated his Belarusian counterpart on a "convincing victory". But that was one day before September 11th. In recent months, President Putin has shown himself less willing to tolerate the Belarusian dictatorship, not least at the summit between the two presidents in Moscow in August, when President Putin dismissed his counterpart's dream of an equal union between the two countries. Instead, he proposed the formation of a union state with Belarus very much a constituent part of the Russia Federation, a suggestion that Lukashenko has categorically rejected.
	The improvement in Russia's relations with the West since September 11th has seen a corresponding deterioration between Russia and its neighbour. There is an opportunity here. As Belarus's closest ally and largest trading partner, Russia has more potential than any other country for exerting positive pressure on Belarus. What action are the Government taking to persuade President Putin to use his considerable influence as a force for good in Belarus? The West has had a small effect in curbing the excesses of the Belarusian authorities on an individual basis, but the mighty weight of the Russian machine would surely have a far greater effect.
	Belarus may not be in the same league as Iraq, but rumours persist—and perhaps the Minister is in a position to substantiate these rumours with evidence—that Minsk is involved in the arms trade, not least of all in the supply of arms to Iraq. Minsk has seen several high level Iraqi delegations in recent months, including one led by the Iraqi Minister for Military Industrialisation, officially to discuss trade and scientific exchanges, although in a recent interview with the BBC, President Lukashenko vehemently denied any involvement in helping to arm Iraq.
	In the context of the war against terrorism and particularly in the context of government policy towards Iraq, I urge the Minister to comment on concerns about Belarus's role in international arms trading and support to terrorism. In particular, what evidence does she have to substantiate allegations that Minsk is a main source of arms delivery to dictatorships and terrorists, including Iraq, as charged by US Congressman Christopher Smith in an interview with Radio Svoboda in July?
	Time may not be on President Lukashenko's side. Liberty, the rule of law and the right to own property—the individual and collective freedoms that we take for granted—are denied to the people of Belarus.
	Finally, I pay tribute to the bravery of all those inside Belarus who bring the situation in their country to the attention of the outside world and who work for freedom and justice. They deserve our support. While I have listened to the rationale for the closure of the British Council in Minsk, I nevertheless deeply regret the fact that that decision was taken.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I should like to add to the congratulations that have already been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and particularly to say how much I welcome the constructive suggestions that he has made, on which I hope the Minister will comment. I hope that she will comment more generally on whether the work of the OSCE can continue under present circumstances. I should like to know what she thinks has been achieved by the Advisory and Monitoring Group in Belarus and what programme of work, if any, was agreed for next year at the Human Dimension meeting held last month. Have the Government any ideas, for instance, for the conference on religious freedom mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, which is to consider among other things what has been called by the Keston Institute,
	"Europe's most repressive religious law"
	which, as I understand it, was signed into law only last week by President Lukashenko?
	This is a country where already all the minority religions are severely restricted and which has the only case in the Soviet Union outside central Asia of a religious building being destroyed to prevent people worshipping in it. That was a church belonging to the Autocephalous Orthodox Church which has repeatedly been denied registration and is described by the authorities as a "non-existent religious group" even though it has 70 parishes. What are we going to do at the OSCE conference next month as regards religious freedom?
	At a press conference on 17th September, President Lukashenko said that,
	"the OSCE does not want to sit down at the negotiating table".
	He repeated his previously stated demand that the OSCE discuss changes to the mandate of its Advisory and Monitoring Group in Minsk but went on to point out that the accreditation terms of several OSCE representatives in Minsk had expired and naturally they had left.
	When the Government of Belarus decided not to extend the visa of the acting head of the AMG, Mr Andrew Carpenter, in June, the chairman of the OSCE Permanent Council, Ambassador Pimentel, made a public statement calling on them to co-operate. He said that Belarus had complained about past events and talked about changing the mandate but had made no specific proposals. The OSCE did not then close the mission because it still thought that it was possible to reach agreement. However, when the visa of the AMG's human rights officer, Meagan Fitzgerald, came up for renewal last month, it, too, was not renewed. I understand that that leaves only one OSCE official in Minsk, a citizen of Moldova who does not need a visa.
	Is there any point in maintaining a nominal AMG when the OSCE's advice is rejected or ignored and when the monitoring is perhaps undertaken just as well by courageous members of the opposition who need to be encouraged, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, suggested? Was this discussed at the Human Dimension meeting and, if they are still minded to keep the skeleton mission going, how do they justify that decision? I am not sure that under these circumstances a visit by the chairman in office will be effective although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that it would at least be worth trying.
	The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Mr Freimut Duve, has also expressed concern about the sentences passed on two journalists mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for having insulted President Lukashenko doing the September 2001 election campaign. Mikola Markevich and Paval Mezheika of the newspaper, Pahonya, were sentenced to two-and-a-half years' hard labour. Mr Duve said that it was absolutely unacceptable that journalists should be prosecuted in a criminal court for what they write, but this was not the first nor the last time that the law has been used to silence critics of the regime. The most recent case was that of Viktar Ivashkevich, editor-in-chief of the independent paper Rabochy, who was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for libelling President Lukashenko as recently as 16th September.
	Apart from the pressure on the OSCE to leave, the Belarus authorities are doing their best to obstruct the work of Radio Free Europe's Belarusian service. The head of the service has tried several times to meet Foreign Ministry officials but they have refused to discuss accreditation of some of its journalists and have threatened to cancel the credentials of all those working for the service because of some mildly critical broadcasts that the service has made.
	A particularly interesting case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is that of Valery Ignatovich, former head of the secret police, who was sentenced to life imprisonment in July for the kidnapping and murder of journalist, Dmitri Zavadski, and five others two years previously. The prosecution claimed that Zavadski had revealed that Ignatovich had been in Chechnya, where he was supposed to have assisted the armed opposition, but Zavadski's family do not believe the story and called for an independent inquiry into the case. The trial of Ignatovich was held behind closed doors and no interviews were given by the prosecution. But two former prosecution officials, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who fled into exile in the US have said that the Prosecutor-General, Viktor Shayman, and the deputy head of the Presidential Office, Yuri Sivakov, had established a death squad, and that President Lukashenko himself had derailed the investigation of Zavadski's disappearance because it would have implicated senior figures in the regime.
	The Chairman of the Belarusan Peoples' Front, Vintsuk Viachorka, representing all the opposition parties in Belarus, in a speech to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe last week, asked them to set up an independent inquiry to examine disappearances in Belarus. Obviously, he does not have the same faith in the ability or competence of the Parliamentary Assembly to do this job as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, does. I believe that if this is going to be an effective investigation it must be conducted by outsiders.
	Of course, they would not be able to take evidence in the country, but there are witnesses living abroad. At least their statements could be recorded formally in the hope that at a future date a more comprehensive investigation could be undertaken. What does the Minister think of that proposal?
	Mr Viachorka demanded the release of political prisoners and the repeal of the laws criminalising "defamation" and "insult" of the President and government officials. He called for reform of the electoral system and procedures on which clear recommendations have been made by the OSCE. Was that matter discussed at the Human Dimension meeting? Can anything be done about it if the recommendations are ignored?
	Mr Viachorka described examples of physical attacks on, and harassment of, opposition politicians. Alaksiej Karol, a Social Democrat, was attacked and beaten unconscious on 15th September. On 29th September a number of Christian Democrats were detained for demonstrating against integration with Russia. That latter case is ironic when Lukashenko himself has blasted the proposals made by President Putin in August for the union, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
	The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights gave a detailed critique of human rights' violations in Belarus at the Human Dimension meeting. They showed that the rule of law does not exist, with the judicial system serving as an appendix of the repressive apparatus of the regime, and as an instrument for fighting dissent.
	Belarus is a rogue state which is in defiance of its international obligations to the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe. It shows no sign of willingness to reform and it is time we considered, together with our allies in the OSCE, and particularly with the Russians, what steps can be taken to persuade Lukashenko that it would be in the interests of himself and his people to co-operate with international institutions.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I appreciate the opportunity of being able to speak briefly in the gap. One cannot escape the fact that 70 per cent of the fallout from Chernobyl fell on Belarus. Separate to political discussions, there is another dialogue that is on-going which is person to person. There are many British-based charities that make a major contribution out in Belarus and they deserve recognition.
	I should like to refer briefly to two of those which are Cardiff based. One is run by Val Cousins; it is called Leaves of Hope. She takes very deprived young people, including young offenders, from Cardiff to work in the young people's institutions in Minsk. I quote from an e-mail from our own ambassador there:
	"The change this has wrought in some of them",
	meaning our young offenders from Cardiff,
	"is truly miraculous, a word I use rarely."
	I have had also personal experience of going out with students through the Belarus Action for Children Cardiff Undergraduate Programme, set up by undergraduates from Cardiff University. I am a trustee designate of that programme. Those youngsters go out and work for two weeks in Novinki orphanage. Having met the director of the orphanage, it was evident that those students have brought about major changes in the way that these severely handicapped children are looked after by their carers.
	Sticks are no longer in evidence as a mode of discipline and the carers are demonstrating a bonding with the children. The students work for two weeks at a time and there is a queue of students wanting to go out there—more than can be accommodated. The students have been welcomed by the medical school in Minsk. The rector there has gone out of his way to embrace their visit and has provided them with accommodation. The students have been able to influence the undergraduate curriculum in Minsk: now there is the inclusion of mental handicap within teaching and the medical school .
	Therefore, the political debate is important and the pressure must be maintained. The person to person influence of our own students and our own charities must not be ignored.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this is one of those short debates in which all speakers agree with each other in regretting the current situation in Belarus, while recognising the limited influence which Her Majesty's Government, on their own, have over it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to Belarus as the hollow centre of Europe. During the past few years, I have increasingly thought of it as the black hole. I go to many meetings to discuss EU enlargement in relation to Russia and I am struck that the one country which is never mentioned is Belarus. No, in fact there are two: people do not mention Moldova because it is even more of a lost cause which people would rather skate over.
	I am conscious that Belarus maintains its closest foreign relations with Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran—not a particularly hopeful collection of partners. I am also conscious that the spill-over to the neighbours and the problems of Belarus in terms of people smuggling, trafficking in women and drugs, disease and other criminal networks is a tremendous problem for its neighbours and will become a problem for the EU within three years, as Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia join the EU.
	We have heard of allegations of weapons supplies from Belarus to Iraq and I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what evidence the Government have about that. We have also heard a great deal about domestic politics and the disappearances which, happily, seems to have ceased in the past year or two. However, intimidation of the press and the opposition clearly continues strongly.
	Yet it will become the EU's external boundary. It will also become the territory across which links between Russia and Kaliningrad have to be maintained. I am conscious that in recent weeks we have been having tough negotiations with the Russians about how those links between Russia and Kaliningrad will be maintained. If they are going across Belarus, there are large questions about how secure they will be and how one can prevent criminal gangs from being involved in such traffic.
	Until two years ago, I was chair of Sub-Committee F of your Lordships' EU Committee and I recall that we examined the future eastern boundary of the EU. We were roundly informed by the Finns and others that one cannot effectively manage an external boundary unless one co-operates extensively and in depth with the state on the other side. At that time, the Lithuanians told us, the Belarusian authorities had not got round to marking an agreed boundary with them. So there was a great deal to do and perhaps the Minister will tell us whether progress has been made, in co-operation with the Belarusian authorities, on how we are to manage that difficult boundary.
	We were also made aware that for the eastern regions of Poland in particular, cross-border trade is important for both sides in terms of economic development. We know that much of that is semi-legal, but it is an important part of maintaining contacts across the border. If there comes to be no alternative but to closing the border, we shall be doing something dreadful to those on the other side of it.
	What is to be done? We recognise that Britain on its own can do little. However, Britain as a member of the EU, of NATO, of the OSCE and of the Council of Europe can do rather more. We must work with Poland and Lithuania, which have direct and local contacts with Belarusian communities on the other side. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, remarked, there is at last the potential for working more closely with Russia now that the Russian Government appear to have lost patience with the antics with the Lukashanko regime. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister how far the possibility of working with Russia to promote a degree of reform in Belarus has so far been explored.
	We are conscious that we are not talking about Belarus alone: the problems of Moldova and of the Ukraine are ones which the EU must actively take on. They are already having a bad effect on members of the EU. I have recently returned from Greece and was hearing much from Greek friends about the extent to which people trafficking—the trafficking of prostitutes and others—from those three countries is beginning to wash across the Balkans and into Greece with all kinds of adverse domestic social consequences.
	There is a certain amount that can be achieved by way of cultural links. I hope that we shall hear a little from the Minister on the subject. We have heard about the office of the British Council. Clearly, it ought to be a priority to get the British Council in Minsk going again. We recognise that the council has its own authorities, but this is the sort of organisation in which it is worth investing. Other cultural exchanges ought to be encouraged wherever possible and, if necessary, subsidised, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. This seems to me to be a classic case in which the Foreign Office should be attempting to provide a larger number of Chevening Scholarships, which would enable bright young Belarusians to come to Britain. That would help to build up a cadre of people when, at last, Lukashenko goes.
	This is a very important issue to the EU in the context of enlargement. It is also an important issue to NATO, if we are to find ourselves with what other noble Lords have described as a "rogue state" on our borders. We are bound to discuss such issues with Russia in the joint NATO/Russia council. Therefore, as the EU already has a rather effective northern dimension, it now needs to think about an eastern dimension to its foreign policy.
	The northern dimension that the Finns and Swedes have very usefully led has focused on the problems of Kaliningrad and how we manage relations with Russia, the problems of pollution of the Baltic, the problems of disease spilling over from Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg, and, indeed, of criminal networks spilling over from St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad and the associated regions of Russia into the northern element of the Union. Similarly, we are threatened by insecurities spilling over from Belarus, the Ukraine, and Moldova as the EU expands. We must do something to attempt to export our security to them rather than importing their insecurity to us.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for raising the issue of Belarus. I share his aspiration that we must try to draw Belarus back into the family of European nations. In a world where so many other countries are making progress, democratically and economically, Belarus is, sadly, standing still. Since 1991, when President Lukashenko came to power, he has refused to allow the privatisation of state-owned companies or to encourage private business. His rule is undoubtedly stifling national growth and development. Indeed, the International Monetary Fund and foreign investors, such as Ikea and McDonalds, among others, have all shown signs of impatience.
	Neither does Lukashenko shirk at electoral malpractice to increase his influence. In l996 he extended his term of office through an internationally condemned referendum. He revised the constitution awarding himself even greater powers over the judiciary. Parliament was replaced with a weaker bicameral national assembly. He also lengthened his term in office by an extra two years until 2001, and parliamentary elections in October 2000 were criticised for not being free, fair and transparent.
	The Belarus constitution does not allow for more than two terms. However, it is thought that Lukashenko is planning another referendum that would allow him to rule until 2015. With the state's almost total control over the media, a "yes" vote is thought virtually certain.
	Lukashenko's human rights record is deeply worrying. I echo the condemnation of the regime's oppression made by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. The UN Human Rights Commissioner, Mary Robinson, has said that the human rights situation is getting far worse there. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned in chilling detail the disappearances. I share his concerns in that respect. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe has asked Belarus to provide information, but, I understand, so far to no avail.
	Mikhail Chigir, a former prime minister, went into opposition in 1997. He has told the Daily Telegraph that he has been hounded by the local KGB ever since. In 1999, his son was arrested on trumped-up charges and is now serving seven years in a labour camp. He went on to say,
	"the best and brightest of our people have left, there is nothing here for them. With this President, Belarus has no future".
	Those that remain are increasingly restless and call for change. Lukashenko responds to such threats by tightening controls over the press and political opponents and by committing countless human rights violations.
	In February 1997, the EU suspended high-level contacts with Belarus because of its poor record on constitutional and human rights issues. The EU has stated that dialogue and assistance will be available if Belarus begins reform.
	More recently, Foreign Ministers agreed to commence establishing a new relationship—"the special status of neighbours"—with Belarus once EU enlargement occurs. Can the Minister confirm that there will be no let-up on pressure from the EU and that good relations with Belarus are conditional on an improvement in Lukashenko's human rights record? My noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, raised concerns about Belarus/Iraqi relations. I very much look forward to the Minister's response to those concerns.
	Relations between Belarus and Russia remain turbulent, despite an agreement on economic union signed in 1996. Analysts in Belarus believe that Lukashenko wants a union that would allow him to stand in Russian presidential elections. A Russian politician described that as,
	"a nuclear-fuelled nightmare scenario for the whole world".
	In the most recent joint talks in August, President Putin surprised and infuriated Lukashenko with two proposals that would leave Lukashenko with little clout if the countries were joined. The union with Belarus is widely supported by the Russian public, but regional analysts see Putin's proposals as a tactic to strategically outplay Lukashenko by having produced an offer that the latter had to refuse. Putin is not prepared to cede power to the smaller country's leader. However, he saves face by still providing options, all the while knowing that they will not be accepted. Sure enough, Lukashenko rejected the offer as "offensive and unacceptable".
	However, Belarus has more to gain from the union than Russia. They are unequal partners with 10 million and 145 million inhabitants respectively, and Belarus has only 3 per cent of Russia's GDP. Indeed, in 1998 the Belarus economy was rescued by the agreement reached between Putin and Lukashenko on the introduction of a single currency. The Belarus rouble had plummeted by half and, in desperation, food rationing was imposed.
	Although, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, Russia has a very important role to play, with the progress that Putin has made with his western counterparts it would not be much of a surprise if he distanced himself from Lukashenko or lost patience, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, because of Lukashenko's human rights record. I much look forward to hearing the Minister's wind-up speech and to hearing how her department reads this fascinating scenario.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for initiating this debate. As has been stated by all noble Lords, there are fundamental problems in Belarus, especially in the areas of political and human rights. On the back of a manipulated referendum and undemocratic presidential elections, there is real doubt as to whether next spring's local elections will be open and fair. In Belarus, the freedoms of the media, the judiciary and religion are threatened.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Astor, mentioned, there is also the growing suspicion that the president is aiming for a third term in office and will again seek to manipulate the constitution to achieve that. The Belarusian people deserve better. We need to continue our efforts to encourage the re-establishment of democracy and the rule of law.
	Of primary concern is the continued repression of those expressing views critical of the Lukashenko regime, an issue raised by all noble Lords. The convictions of staff members of the independent weekly Pagonya have attracted the attention of many international human rights groups. Most recently the European Union has condemned the sentencing of journalist Victor Ivashkevich and has urged the authorities to review the verdict. In addition, no progress has been made in investigating the disappearance of Dmitry Zavadsky. The British embassy in Minsk has been involved in all those cases, sending representatives to monitor the trials.
	With respect to the members of the opposition who have disappeared, the official investigations produced no information about their fate or whereabouts, nor were the investigations conducted in a transparent manner. Independent newspapers continue to be subject to direct censorship, seizure of equipment, criminal prosecution and outright closure. Meanwhile television and radio are generally subject to even more state control.
	We are also concerned about the adoption of amendments to the country's religious law. That point was made by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Avebury. This is an extremely illiberal piece of legislation, intended to prop up the Russian Orthodox. The losers are the Belarusians themselves. Many religious groups, notably the Protestant and Jewish communities, will find it almost impossible to continue functioning.
	My noble friend Lord Ponsonby asked about support for members of the national assembly of Belarus. The United Kingdom, with our EU partners, does not recognise the legitimacy of the regime in place since President Lukashenko manipulated the November 1996 referendum. Nor do we recognise the validity of the parliamentary elections held in October 2001.
	Relations with the European Union have been frozen as a result. We have no formal links with the national assembly but we respect the fact that individual British parliamentarians have contacts on a personal basis. To resume their place in the European democratic mainstream the Belarusian Government must demonstrate their commitment to European human rights and democratic norms. We still await positive signals from Belarus in that respect. Any contact with the national assembly would undermine the arguments of those who understand that progress can come about only through genuine reform of the political system.
	Next year sees local elections in the country. As part of our stated aim to encourage and to promote democracy and civil society, we welcome the greater co-operation between political groups and NGOs. I can assure my noble friend that, with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, we are supporting a project aimed at building civil society capacity for participation in the local elections. We are also ready to look at any other initiatives that will lead to building support for good governance.
	Belarus may not be changing, but the region around it is. The noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Moynihan, spoke about the European Union and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, also spoke of a policy looking east. Belarus's western neighbour, Poland, is now a member of NATO and should soon join the European Union. Belarus's north-western neighbours, Latvia and Lithuania, are candidates to join both NATO and the EU. To the south, Ukraine has just declared its intention to join NATO and is seeking to intensify its relations with the EU as it has stated its desire to join one day. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs recently launched a "wider Europe" initiative that aims to encourage the EU to set up a policy for its relationships with Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus after EU enlargement. Such a policy could be the basis for the fruitful development of relations between the EU and its three new eastern neighbours. We envisage enhanced agreement in a range of areas, conditional on further reforms in the countries concerned. The Danish presidency is taking forward detailed work on these elements. On present form Belarus looks likely to miss out on the opportunities that that would offer. But the clear option of a more beneficial relationship with the EU will soon be on the table. Belarus will need to decide how to respond.
	On the OSCE, my noble friend rightly referred to the OSCE's Advisory and Monitoring Group. Other noble Lords talked about the OSCE. President Lukashenko's refusal to allow the group's political officers to remain in Minsk gives cause for great concern.
	Subsequent to the departure in September of US Secondee Fitzgerald I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that there is now just one diplomatic administrator in place.
	The European Union recognises the crucial contribution made by the OSCE in strengthening democratic institutions in Belarus.
	Closure of the OSCE would set a bad precedent to Lukashenko. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby suggested that it would be helpful to have the chairman of the OSCE travel to Belarus. I would suggest that the chairman of the OSCE and Belarusian representatives in Vienna initially enter into constructive dialogue with a view to re-establishing the AMG as an effective vehicle for monitoring changes within Belarus. I hope that the Belarusian authorities will give their ambassador to the OSCE in Vienna both the instructions and the authority to facilitate such dialogue.
	As to the British Council, the closure in October 2001 of its office in Minsk was a decision by its board as part of a global re-evaluation of its resources and its responsibilities. I can understand the concerns expressed by noble Lords today. I shall take those concerns back to the British Council. But it has made decisions in a number of areas which have had an impact on its strategy and its policy. This is an area where perhaps it will not re-evaluate, but I shall take the concerns back.
	The noble Lords, Lord Moynihan, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Astor, raised the issue of arms sales to Iraq. We are monitoring reports about alleged arms sales and technical assistance to Baghdad, but there is no more that I can say on that subject at this time.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned the work of NGOs. She also made reference to the Chernobyl children. Many Belarusian children suffered from the Chernobyl disaster. More than 70 per cent of the radioactive fall-out fell on Belarus. UK charities are closely engaged and invite Belarusian children to the UK for visits. I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to recognise the good work that has been done. I thank the noble Baroness for bringing the work of the Leaves of Hope Charity to the attention of the House today.
	The noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Astor, and other noble Lords talked about the role of Russia. I agree that Russia has a key role to play. As noble Lords have mentioned, the relationship with President Putin has deteriorated. Bilateral talks were held in Moscow on 14th August. President Putin outlined two options for the future of the Russia/Belarus relationship as an integral or federal state based on the European Union model.
	Lukashenko responded by calling a press conference in which he ruled out the models for integration suggested by Moscow, declaring that,
	"The Belarusians will not accept this".
	He was particularly critical of Russian insistence that the Union currency be issued by Russia alone, declaring that,
	"Our national bank should not become a branch office of the Russian Central Bank".
	He reiterated his call for equality between Russia and Belarus. I do not know what the next step will be in terms of that relationship, but we recognise the key role that Russia has to play. We shall continue to talk to the Russians about this.
	My noble friend Lord Ponsonby asked specifically about our current policy and the noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked me to confirm our position on assistance to Belarus. Our action to deal with Belarus must necessarily be taken in concert with our EU and other partners. We are all exerting pressure for change but, in the end, the solution lies in Lukashenko's hands—we cannot run Belarus for him. He has been in power since 1994 and has four years of his current term left to run.
	The UK and other EU member states have made our position clear. The measures taken by the EU in 1997 remain in place. They restrict ministerial contact with Belarus; suspend aid, except for humanitarian reasons or to support civil society; and suspend ratification of the EU-Belarus partnership and co-operation agreement. EU member states will not support Belarus's membership of the Council of Europe. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's "Partnership for Peace" agreement, signed in 1995, remains undeveloped. Aid to Belarus by international financial institutions is restricted—they support only small and medium-sized enterprises in the private sector, with a view to strengthening civil society.
	I must make absolutely clear that we have no quarrel with the people of Belarus. We want to alleviate the problems that they face because of the misguided policies of their leader.
	The situation is bleak, but we must work towards a time when Belarus will return to the path of democracy; when human rights are once again upheld; and when freedom of speech and expression is returned to its people.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 15.
	[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
	Clause 17 [Destitution: definition]:
	[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
	Clause 21 [Person subject to United Kingdom entrance control]:
	[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
	Clause 22 [Provisional assistance]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Page 12, line 27, at end insert-
	"(2) Section 99 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (provision of support by local authority) shall have effect in relation to the provision of support for persons under subsection (1) above as it has effect in relation to the provision of support for asylum-seekers under sections 95 and 98 of that Act."

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, these government amendments will ensure that local authorities have power to enter into contracts with the Home Office in respect of National Asylum Support Service emergency accommodation, induction centres and accommodation centres. We had thought that existing provisions in the Local Government Act 2000 would be sufficient for that purpose. However, on reflection, we have concluded that that may not be the case and have decided to put the matter beyond reasonable doubt.
	The National Asylum Support Service has existing powers under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 that enable it to enter into contracts with local authorities in respect of accommodation under Section 95 of that Act, which is generally referred to as dispersal accommodation. However, to date NASS has contracted with the voluntary sector for the provision of emergency accommodation under Section 98 of the 1999 Act. NASS is currently considering how to expand the range of providers used for emergency accommodation. A number of local authorities have expressed an interest in both providing such accommodation and running induction centres on behalf of NASS. We must be assured they have the powers to do so.
	Likewise, local authorities in potential accommodation centre areas have shown an interest in providing services in respect of accommodation centres. Although the intention is that accommodation centres should not burden mainstream services, local authorities see an advantage in ensuring that accommodation centre services are closely aligned with mainstream provision. Providing services under contract to the Home Office or the centre operator would be one way forward, if that was mutually convenient for those concerned.
	In addition, as we said during the debate on Clause 14, we have decided to pursue alternative models for accommodation centres, with a view to developing one or two broad options—perhaps a network of accommodation blocks round a central service core or a self-contained centre with a capacity of 250 to 300 beds. Either would increase the likelihood that a local authority would have suitable premises that it might be prepared to offer for use as an accommodation centre.
	The amendments will ensure that we have the flexibility that we need to procure alternative models of accommodation centre provision. The powers contained in the amendments are permissive and impose no new duties on local authorities. They will simply give local authorities the confidence that they have a clear statutory basis for entering into contracts in respect of emergency accommodation, induction or accommodation centres. That clarity will be broadly welcomed. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 23 [Length of stay: family with children]:

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Page 12, line 35, leave out "17" and insert "18"

Earl Russell: My Lords, I must first apologise to the House for not being in my place one minute ago. I must confess that I had not expected quite such a degree of punctuality in the House. I congratulate it; it does a great deal better than our railways.
	The amendments deal with the age of majority and would change the age set out in the Bill from 17 to 18. Eighteen is recognised as the age of majority in the law of this country and in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. There is something to be said for a degree of harmony on the matter. The use of 17 is anomalous. The age will frequently be forgotten, as, on at least one occasion during the passage of the Bill, it was forgotten by the Minister. It will be easier to remember if we have the same age of majority all round. I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Home Secretary announced in another place that we would propose an amendment to limit the time to be spent by families with children in accommodation centres. The concerns that prompted the announcement focused on the fact that children would be educated in accommodation centres and not at schools in the community.
	The purpose of Clause 23 is to allow a decision to be made after a set period, which we think should be six months, about whether the family should remain in the accommodation centre. That will take account of the stage that the asylum claim has reached in the process, a report from the education provider at the accommodation centre and the views of the parents. I should make it clear that, when producing guidelines on how that should operate, we will ensure that account is also taken of the view of the children.
	If a decision is made that the family should remain in the accommodation centre, the relevant maximum period will be three months, as previously stated. After that, if the family is still there, it will be at liberty, if it wishes, to move to a dispersal area.
	The point is not the age of majority. It is how we enable a child to enter a school in the community, if the decision is made that the family should leave the centre after a certain period. Given that, it would seem strange that the clause should be amended to apply equally to those aged 17, who are not of compulsory school age. The issues are not the same. Naturally, I understand the noble Earl's desire to ensure that all residents of an accommodation centre should leave after six months. However, dependants who are above the age of compulsory schooling—17 and above—will, of course, have the opportunity to take part in the purposeful activities at the accommodation centre. In any event, as we envisage it, if they wanted to take part in further education they would have access to the mainstream system in the same way as any other 17 year-old.
	We have considered the clause in the light of representations and have further decided to make the regulations under this clause subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as I believe the Home Secretary recently indicated to Simon Hughes by letter.
	For these reasons, we see the issue essentially as not about the age of majority but about the age at which compulsory schooling ends.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not think that the Minister has taken on board quite how the educational calendar works. I agree that 16 is the school leaving age, but the Minister referred to proceeding into further education. Normally, with any kind of further or higher education, the age of entry would be 18. In the remarkable event of any asylum seeker, after education at the centre, being already fully qualified to proceed to that stage, he or she would not be able to do so, probably, for another year afterwards. That year would be rather difficult to fill.
	The difficulties of being a British-born 16 or 17 year-old at the moment are already very considerable. I have addressed the House on this subject probably 30 or 40 times—I reassure the Minister that I am not going to do so again—but such people fall regularly between two stools: they are not bound to be maintained by their parents but they do not have any adult private support. They have considerable difficulty. One would expect those difficulties to be multiplied in the case of an asylum seeker, who has no right to work, no entitlement to support, and very little in the way of a place to go. I believe the Minister will hear a lot more about the troubles of these 17 year-olds before he is through. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
	Clause 24 [Withdrawal of support]:

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Page 13, line 26, at end insert-
	"( ) The Secretary of State may not stop providing support under section 15 or 22 of this Act where-
	(a) to stop providing such support would render the person or any dependant of his destitute within the meaning of section 17 of this Act or section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (provision of support), and
	(b) the Secretary of State has not provided or arranged for the provision of support for the person under section 4 (accommodation for those temporarily admitted or released from detention) or section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999."

Earl Russell: My Lords, Amendment No. 23 seeks to provide that the Secretary of State may not stop providing support under Clauses 15 or 22 of the Bill where to stop providing such support would render a person destitute. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, knows perfectly well that I am allergic to any social security measure that has the effect of leaving people destitute. I shall not go over those arguments again, save to make one point which I have not previously made. It concerns the link between rights and responsibilities, an issue on which I touched during the debate on Clause 4.
	The proper way of understanding it is that the Government owes to all their subjects a duty of protection. That responsibility is the overriding principle of civil society. However, "protection" does not only mean protection against external elements; it means—and has meant since the Poor Law Act 1601, if not longer—protection against destitution and starvation. We do not believe that asylum seekers are the right people—if anyone is the right person—to be deprived of that particular protection from the state.
	The issue has been discussed for a long time. I once discovered in the Cecil papers for the year 1601 a proposal to deprive all blackamoors of rights to support under the poor law. Nothing more was heard of that proposal. Queen Elizabeth I—unlike the present Government—was allergic to such measures and she was probably the one who stopped it.
	But even if one were to say that it is perfectly proper for people to be deprived of all forms of support, asylum seekers are not in a position to be suitable candidates. If you are not allowed to work and are not allowed to receive any form of support, what are you to do next? You are in a far worse position than a British-born person suffering similar difficulty.
	Most of us who have been on holiday and have lost our money, got lost, been robbed or found that our traveller's cheques have fallen into the water know that it is a far greater hardship to be destitute in a foreign country than it is to be destitute in one's own. One does not have the contacts or the network of friends to offer support. One does not know where to go, or which restaurants throw out food which is still good to eat. It is much harder to be destitute in a strange place. To be destitute when you have no right to work leaves you with no honest means of keeping alive. That is leading people into temptation, which is a bad thing to do.
	The powers in the Bill to withdraw support from those who are taken out of accommodation centres is one of the more sinister aspects of the Bill. If that withdrawal of support is seen as a penalty for not entering an accommodation centre, one wonders whether that may make the placing of people in accommodation centres have more resemblance to detention than the Minister intends it to have.
	In Committee, the Minister said that he did not intend the centres to be regarded as detention centres. I accept that that is his intention. But the Home Office knows well enough that what may be perceived by the courts as the effect of its actions may not always be what it intended to produce.
	The deprivation of support for leaving an accommodation centre bears some resemblance to a penalty. It is a penal deprivation. So if going out of an asylum centre results in a loss of support and that is seen as a punishment, the restraint followed by the punishment for breaking the restraint may come to have some resemblance to detention.
	There is a grey area here which is between liberty and detention. It is a commonplace that people who are under police investigation may be asked to hand in their passports. That does not amount to detention. When we come to a case such as house arrest—used more in other countries than it is here, I am glad to say—we are in an even greyer area. If you are not allowed to go out of your house, that could very well be construed by a court to be detention.
	In that context, will the Minister answer a question which I asked him earlier in the debate on accommodation? How free will people in the centres be to come and go? Is there any maximum number of hours in a day that they must be in the centre? If they find the means to go up to London for the day and do not tell anyone that they are going, is that to be an offence? If they miss the last bus back, or if, as all too often happens, the last bus is cancelled, are they then committing an offence which renders them liable to expulsion from the centre, deprivation of support and possibly detention as well? These questions will help lawyers—of whom I regret to say I am not one—to determine whether the degree of restraint involved in being put in an accommodation centre amounts to detention.
	If it does, it will engage Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. People will need to be given written reasons for their detention. They will need to be given an explanation of the case. They will need to be given the chance to defend themselves. I believe that the Government intend none of those things. But the combination of the withdrawal of support and the compulsory placing in particular accommodation is capable of a more arbitrary construction than I think Ministers would wish me to give it. However, in the end it does not matter what construction I give it; what matters is the construction that the courts give it. There is the further point to be considered that it is now being argued by your Lordships' Joint Committee on Human Rights, among others, that deprivation of support may amount to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
	I shall quote from the case Husain v Asylum Support Adjudicator, which, I think, arose since the report was written. If the Minister wishes to check its reference, it is case CO/105/2001. The judgment was made by Mr Justice Stanley Burnton on 5th October 2001. He said:
	"I find the question whether a failure to support destitute asylum-seekers constitutes a violation of Article 3 a difficult one. I do not think it necessary for me to answer it and I do not propose to do so".
	However, he then remarks:
	"In my judgment, unless other means of support are available when support is withdrawn, there will be a violation of Article 3".
	That remark should be taken as obiter dictum, but the judgment might interest the Minister. It involved an asylum-seeker who had got into a fight with an Algerian. He was deprived of support, and the judgment was that, in general, a failure to provide support might not constitute inhuman or degrading treatment. However, once he had been recognised as having a right to receive support under the ordinary rules of law, to take it away from him on an individual basis did constitute inhuman or degrading treatment. It is an interesting, logical, good lawyers' distinction. That judgment was made at first instance, but no judgment on the point has yet been made in an higher court.
	Before going ahead with the power to declare people not to be destitute, or the power to take away support from anyone outside a centre, as contained in Clause 24, I ask the Minister to take the advice of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, for whom I have great admiration, and to whose opinion I believe he and I would both listen extremely closely. This is a matter in respect of which the Government are sailing in very deep legal water. They need a rather better chart than they have at present. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has as ever touched on a very sensitive issue that, obviously, we in Government have had to consider carefully. Obviously, one understands where the noble Earl is coming from. We accept as a given that there has to be a generosity of spirit about these matters.
	However, we do not find the amendment acceptable because it would prevent us withdrawing support from certain accommodation centre residents. Although it may seem a hard thing to do, there may well be circumstances in which that is desirable.
	The Government's clear message to those who seek refuge here is that we will not tolerate abuse. To that end, it is essential from our perspective and for the better protection of the public purse that on certain occasions we should be able to consider withdrawing support from those who fail to abide by the conditions of residence in accommodation centres. We must have some form of sanction for asylum seekers who do all that they can to play, or perhaps manipulate, the system—those who do not want to remain in touch with us or to comply with the asylum process. In those circumstances, rare as they may well be, it is reasonable to have the option of withdrawing support.
	That may sound harsh, but the Government are not trying to be harsh or hard-nosed; nor are we looking for any or every opportunity we can find to deny support to destitute asylum seekers. I could make a respectable case that this Government have gone a very long way to ensure that we make adequate provision for those rightly and properly seeking asylum in this country. I invite the noble Earl to support the notion that there may well be occasions on which people abuse the asylum support system. We make no apology for dealing firmly with them in those circumstances.
	Clause 24 makes clear that the Secretary of State may stop providing support to a person if he or his dependants fail to comply with any directions as to the time or manner of travel to or from an accommodation centre. That provision reflects our experience of operating the dispersal system. No doubt noble Lords are aware that asylum seekers' failure to travel to dispersal accommodation has been a major headache for NASS during the early days of its operation. Asylum seekers accommodated in emergency accommodation in London have sought to avoid dispersal by failing to travel. We do not want to repeat that experience. We do not believe that it is in anyone's best interests and we certainly do not think that it would be in the best interests of those who end up using the services of accommodation centres. It is therefore right in our estimation that, as a matter of last resort, we have the ability to withdraw support.
	We do not take such decisions lightly. Withdrawing support is a very serious measure. I assure the House that we will take great care in making those decisions. They will be made on a case-by-case basis, looking carefully at the individual circumstances of each case and deciding on the merits before making a decision to withdraw support. It is right to put on record that any such decision will rightly attract a right of appeal before the asylum support adjudicator.
	I can well understand where the noble Earl is coming from. I have heard his argument before in other policy areas. He is seeking to create the ultimate safety net for those who are here and are truly destitute. On the one hand that is a laudable intention, but on the other hand, as the noble Earl mentioned, there are personal responsibilities. We will not place unreasonable requirements on asylum seekers. If those who are destitute comply with our reasonable requirements—if they have not deceived us as to their means, if they travel to their allocated accommodation centre as directed and if they comply with their conditions of residence when they get there—they will be properly provided with support while their asylum application is considered.
	However, it is not unreasonable to set out clearly what those reasonable requirements are, for them to be understood and for there to be an element of encouragement and compulsion if those conditions are seriously breached. If individual asylum seekers do not want to comply with the system, we do not consider it unreasonable to suggest that their situation would be self-imposed.
	The asylum support system—both in the provisions in the 1999 Act and in the proposals in this Bill for accommodation centres—is intended to be a basic system of safety net support. We have, as I explained, the further safety net of a right of appeal. Clause 44, which inserts new Section 122 into the 1999 Act, provides that in the event that asylum support is withdrawn from a family with children, there is a further safety net for the children of support from the local authority under the relevant child welfare provisions. In this instance, those provisions are Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, Section 22 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, and Article 18 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. In those circumstances, the local authority is obliged to offer support if the children would otherwise be at risk.
	The noble Earl has raised the issue of the implications of Article 3 of the ECHR. Article 3 provides that no one shall suffer inhuman or degrading treatment. It is an absolute right and provides a safety net. We do not consider that simple destitution alone engages Article 3 as it would not meet the minimum level of severity required under Article 3. However—this is an important assurance—we shall very carefully take Article 3 into account in deciding whether to withdraw support. The noble Earl has made some important and powerful points in regard to that point today, and they are points on which we shall have to reflect further. I should add that the Secretary of State has a discretion to reinstate support at a later date if he thinks that there is an emerging danger of a violation of Article 3.
	How many safety nets do we need? We think that we have to have sufficient to catch those who are genuinely in need. We also think that it is widely accepted that we have for the most part managed to ensure and provide for that.
	We also think it crucial that, as a bottom line, we must have a sanction for those who are taking liberties with the hospitality of our system. I invite the noble Earl to consider this point. There may well be those who seek to abuse the system—I think that he would have to accept that there are circumstances in which that occurs. I ask him to consider what sort of sanction he thinks would be suitable in such circumstances. We feel that in most circumstances this provision will be a sanction of last resort and that it is not unreasonable in the circumstances.
	The noble Earl also made some points about the element of compulsion. He asked how free people would be to come and go at accommodation centres. The answer is that there will probably be great flexibility. However, there will be a reporting restriction, and we would expect it to be a daily restriction. Consent for travelling away from the accommodation centre to visit perhaps friends and relatives will, of course, not be unreasonably withheld. Nevertheless, we would quite properly expect those using the services of the accommodation centre to seek the consent of the management of that centre. As I said, however, that consent would not be unreasonably withheld in the circumstances.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Russell asked the Minister whether he could set out in detail the conditions that will be imposed by the regulations. This is an issue of some importance as it was raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in paragraph 39 of its report. The Committee said that it was theoretically possible that very restrictive rules about a person's ability to come and go from the centre could constitute a violation of Article 5(1). What we are talking about here is the declaration of benefits for someone who is in breach of the rules. It is therefore extremely important that we know exactly what will be in these regulations and how strict they will be, so that we can see whether we think that they comply with Article 5(1). The Joint Committee on Human Rights was, of course, talking in the absence of knowledge of what is in the Government's mind as regards the detail. Could the Minister therefore produce a skeleton of what will be in these regulations, so that we can look at it before Third Reading?

Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the Minister reflects on that matter, will the Government undertake to look again at the word "suspect" in Clause 24 at line 20? It is important that there should be some proof of an offence before such draconian sanctions are invoked even if there is a complicated right of appeal.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, of course we will always actively consider the wording. The noble Lord makes a good point. Suspicion has to be engendered by behaviour. One would expect careful consideration to be given to someone's behaviour before the power was exercised.
	We fully recognise the validity of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. We have no intention that conditions of residence at an accommodation centre should be so stringent as to amount to de facto detention. That is part of the core argument advanced by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
	We have yet to settle the precise details of reporting and residence restrictions at the centres but, as I said earlier, it is our opinion that there will be a requirement to report daily and to attend all scheduled appointments relating to the asylum claim. I do not believe that that is an unreasonable condition. Much of the debate in your Lordships' House today has been about ensuring that we stick to timetable in completing the processing of asylum claims. One amendment encouraged the Government to ensure that it would be carried out within four months; another amendment not moved sought that claims should be processed within 10 weeks. It is in everyone's interest, particularly the claimant's, that we ensure that appointments are kept so that the process can be speedily expedited.
	We take the issue seriously and understand its sensitivity. We will ensure that we give it full regard when we come to set the conditions of residence in the accommodation centres. I am not going to promise across the Dispatch Box to produce drafts before Third Reading; that would place an unreasonable burden on us. But the points raised are fair and proper. We will reflect carefully on them and do all that we can to spell out in more detail how the conditions of residence will work and what they will be.
	It is our intention that accommodation centre residents will be able properly to request permission to be absent from the centre and that such permission will not be unreasonably withheld. Members of your Lordships' House should understand that regulations under Clause 28 relating to conditions of residence will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure so there will be the proper and full opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny and further debate, as there should be. We cannot have that debate this evening. However, we undertake to ensure that Members of your Lordships' House and of another place will have the opportunity to give those procedures close scrutiny as soon as possible. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I hope that he will forgive me for beginning a reply on a serious matter on a slightly irreverent note. When he says that the Government take the sanction seriously and that it will not be imposed lightly, he reminds me of the Kaiser, then aged five, being spanked by his nurse. The nurse said, "This hurts me more than it hurts you". To which the Kaiser replied, "Oh? And in the same place?"
	The Minister asked me how many safety nets I require. The answer is, "Until we get down to one that does not have any holes cut in it". So the answer is in the Minister's own hands. The safety net is increasingly resembling the Irishman's famous definition of a net—a series of holes tied together with bits of string. But the holes are getting rather wider as we go along.
	I accept, of course, that there must be a sanction. In any human affairs where any discipline or order is necessary, there must be a sanction. The question is whether this sanction is, as it would be put in European law, disproportionate to what it is dealing with. In extreme cases, clearly imprisonment may be an appropriate sanction. I would regard that as a very much milder punishment than the deprivation of support. That is something I ask the Government to take on board; it is a long-standing conviction. You do not in normal circumstances die of starvation because you are imprisoned; you are fed.
	I remember very vividly being in this Chamber when we finally agreed to ratify the protocol of the European convention which abolished the death penalty altogether in this country. We were led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, whom I admire very much for doing what he did. He did it brilliantly. But I did not take part in order to adopt the lines of A H Clough's New Decalogue:
	"Thou shalt not kill but need not strive officiously to keep alive".
	I refer to the real problem of withdrawing support from people with no right to work; namely, how does the Minister believe that they will make a living in the meantime? I know about the right of appeal to an adjudicator. That is where the case of Husain v Asylum Support Adjudicator which I mentioned came from. But the problem remains: how are you to remain alive while you are appealing and while you have no support while you appeal? You do not necessarily have a network of relatives you can fall back on. You do not necessarily—although some asylum seekers do—have a community of your own you can fall back on.
	I remember a case found by the CAB of one Somali who was sent to Brighton under the dispersal policy where there was not a single other person in the whole town who spoke his language. If he were deprived of support, to whom should he turn? One hopes that such people will not turn to crime but it is hard to see what other alternative is open to them.
	Before I withdraw the amendment—which is my present intention—I want an answer from the Minister: how does he think that people will make a living when they have been deprived of support? I await the Minister's answer with interest. I shall not withdraw the amendment until I have it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have made plain that the circumstances in which support can be withdrawn will in our estimation be few indeed. However, it is an ultimate sanction. As I understand the position, it is not a sanction unknown across the benefits system.
	The noble Earl makes the easy point and it is a fair one in the circumstances. However, I cannot believe that an asylum seeker seeking support in an accommodation centre will be entirely without in the kinds of circumstances that the noble Earl envisages. This is the longstop, ultimate sanction for those who are mendacious and who deliberately flout the rules and are in breach of them. It is intended to bring people up sharply to consider the position in which they find themselves and to ensure a reasonable degree of compliance.
	If they comply with the rules, they will receive support. As I have said clearly on at least one occasion—perhaps two occasions—there is a discretion. The Secretary of State will be able to exercise that discretion in the circumstance to reinstate support at any time if it is felt that the Article 3 threshold has been reached.
	During one of our exchanges, I made the point that there is a circumstance which will permit the local authority to provide a degree of support, in particular for any children who might be affected by a severe breach—that is what it would be—of the asylum support system. That may not satisfy the noble Earl, but it is the situation as we see it.
	The noble Earl has conceded that we are right that there should be some form of sanction. We believe that it is the most appropriate form in these sets of circumstances.

Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister has answered every question under the sun except the one that I asked. I take the point about children, which I will leave there for the time being. However, if we are dealing with a single adult who is deprived of support, how does the Minister expect him to keep alive? That is the question to which I want an answer before I withdraw the amendment. It is a fair question and the Minister should have considered it before introducing the measure.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that I have answered the noble Earl's points and questions as best I can. He may not believe that I have dealt with them all directly. Obviously, the question he asks is important in the context of this debate. I am happy to give further thought and reflection to the points he has made, but I shall not give him any further answers. I shall be happy to share correspondence with him on the issue in order to clarify some of the points on which he may disagree with us.

Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister reconsider his answer that he will not give me any further information? If he does not, I shall have no option but to divide the House, which was not my wish.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not believe that I can add further clarification today. I am happy to share with the noble Earl further thoughts in correspondence outside the confines of today's debate.

Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister should not have introduced the measure without having an answer to the question ready. He does not and I would like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 61.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 24:
	After Clause 26, insert the following new clause—
	"Prohibition of persons disqualified from working with children from working in accommodation centres: amendment of section 36 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (C. 43)
	There shall be inserted after section 36(2)(a) of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43) (meaning of "regulated position")—
	"(aa) an accommodation centre provided under section 14 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,"."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the effect of this amendment would be to make it a criminal offence for a person who is disqualified from working with children to apply for, or accept, a job in an accommodation centre. Those disqualified from working with children under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 must, first, have committed a crime that falls within the definition of an offence against a child in the Act. That includes not only sex offences but also other crimes, such as child cruelty, child abduction, serious assaults on children and dealing class A drugs to a child. They must also have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
	We are talking about people with a serious criminal history. Section 36 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act defines the jobs that such people are disqualified from doing. They include all jobs that involve caring for, training, supervising, or being in sole charge of children, whether permanent, casual, paid or unpaid work.
	When I moved this amendment in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, pointed out that any such jobs in accommodation centres would therefore already be covered under this provision. However, that definition in Section 36(1) of the Act does not cover ancillary positions whose duties do not involve direct work with children; for example, security guards, caretakers, gardeners or office staff—people who will still come into contact with the children during their stay in accommodation centres. Section 36(2) of the Act therefore lists a number of types of establishment where those disqualified from working with children may not work in any position, no matter whether or not the job involves direct contact with children.
	The establishments listed in Section 36(2) include children's homes, children's hospitals and educational institutions. It is that list into which my amendment seeks to insert the accommodation centres that the Government propose to establish in the Bill. The effect of it would be to prevent those disqualified from working with children from taking up any position whatever in an accommodation centre.
	In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, pointed out that children will be living with their families in accommodation centres. Thus, he said, the position is not exactly the same as in, for example, children's homes. That is a distinction, but I invite the House to consider whether the arguments in favour of additional protection outweigh it.
	Of course, the children will be living with their parents. The parents will be on site but not always by their side. None the less, those children will be some of the most vulnerable in our society. They will know little or no English at that stage. They will have no experience of life in this country. They may well be eager to seek to please those in what they regard as positions of authority and will thus be extremely susceptible. After all, they may not wish to complain for fear of jeopardising their families' claims for asylum.
	Last month I received a letter from the Minister of State at the Home Office, Beverley Hughes. I thank her for that courteous letter. I understand that it was copied to the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Hylton. In her letter, Ms Hughes states:
	"I fully understand your concerns and agree that all children, wherever they are housed, schooled or looked after, ought to be protected as much as possible from those that seek to cause them harm. I am also in agreement with you on the particular vulnerability of asylum seeking children who may be scared, confused or unable to communicate because of language difficulties".
	But she then goes on to say that the Government are unable to accept the amendment. The principal reason given in the Minister's letter appears to be that to include accommodation centres in the list would be "disproportionate and illogical". I beg to disagree on that. I believe that the amendment is both necessary and desirable, that it will provide an additional level of protection, and that it will send a clear message that accommodation centres should be places of safety not only from the threats that asylum seekers face overseas but also from those that, sadly, all too often persist in our own country. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we find it astonishing that this amendment is not being accepted. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said—I remind him—that accommodation staff, such as teachers and crèche workers, would already be covered under Section 36 of the Act. The position of ancillary staff, which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned, should be acknowledged and reconsidered.
	We were also concerned about other staff in accommodation centres. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said:
	"We shall ensure that any contract with an accommodation centre provider enables the Home Office to approve staff before they start work at the centre. We shall also require the contractor to undertake the highest possible level of criminal records check for each member of staff. Our initial view is that those contractual requirements, together with the existing statutory protection, are sufficient. However, in the light of this amendment, we shall consider whether there is merit in providing some additional statutory protection".—[Official Report, 10/7/02; col. 752.]
	Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the subject of additional protection has been discussed by the Home Office and whether any further information is available on it.
	The reason that one feels suspicious about such an arrangement is that it is very difficult to obtain the details of contracts between the Home Office and, for example, Group 4 because they are considered to be matters of commercial confidentiality. It is unlikely that people who are not part of that particular set-up would ever find out the precise arrangements between the Home Office and the contractors.
	The Government may argue that there is no problem because children are with their families, a point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. However, many of them may not speak English and their families may not speak English. Also, their cultures will be different. Families may fear that any complaint would result in support being withdrawn or, worse, that they would be sent back to face persecution. To a greater or lesser extent, children will be confined in accommodation centres. They may see the staff as a whole and be reluctant to complain to a teacher or creche worker or someone outside the family.
	Some of the children may be in a position which the psychotherapists working with children at the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture describe as "emotionally unaccompanied". The parents may be in such an acute state of distress, following torture, persecution and exile, that their ability to parent will be impaired. Parents may simply not be there. They will have to attend interviews with the Home Office and comply with other procedures. It is far from clear that they will always be with their children. Will older children be in a creche during such times? The Government cannot say exactly where such children will be because no detailed plans for the centres exist. The Government may point to other situations not included in Section 36. The answer to most, if not all, of these points is likely to be that they ought to be and two wrongs do not make a right.
	This amendment is fairly modest. The notion that the Government may reject it is frightening and I hope that the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to the proposal made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, which we support.

Earl Russell: My Lords, if I were the Minister I would accept this amendment at once before there was any more discussion on it. The moment when a government cannot recognise a hot potato when they see one is the moment when they have been in office too long. This Government seem to be reaching that stage rather early. They have been extremely active—I make no criticism of that—in the matter of child protection in every other area, as anyone trying to fill school teaching vacancies is well aware. If they do it for everyone except asylum seekers, they risk giving the impression that they regard asylum seekers as a lesser breed who are without the law.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I have much sympathy for the amendment. However, earlier we heard that there probably will be some accommodation centres that will cater for adults only. If that is the case, the amendment, should it be accepted, would need further modification.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I support the amendment. I shall be extremely shocked if the Minister does not accept it. We have had two absolutely extraordinary replies to two recent amendments. I found the last one completely extraordinary, causing me to vote against the Government, which I was not intending to do. I hope that the Minister will at least listen and not just turn it down. There is not the smallest doubt that the vulnerability of people in accommodation centres will be enormous and greater than in any other institution that one can think of because of their unusual situation and the unpredictability of the way in which people may behave. The Government have to look to their laurels. They are being cruel.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: I support the amendment. It is a symptom of the fact that the Bill is being rushed through. One sympathises with the Government wanting to get the legislation through, but we are fulfilling our responsibility in giving it proper scrutiny, which it has not received elsewhere. I urge the Government to consider this amendment carefully.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can see absolutely no defence against the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Anelay. Perhaps I may ask the Minister—he owes the House at least an explanation—to counter an answer that I believe was given on a previous occasion. That is, the distinction has been made because the children live on the campus with their families so somehow or other they are not vulnerable enough to warrant this amendment.
	I proffer the following scenario, which is entirely probable. One envisages a campus, which is usually a disused military base. The distance from it that children undertaking activities with other adults are likely to be is as great or even greater than my children were from their school in the village in which I live. The Government are absolutely insistent, and have put in an elaborate programme, to make sure that the children who attend my local village school, who live a matter of yards away from their families, are fully protected. Yet these children can be half a mile, a mile, or even more on some of these campuses, away from their immediate families in the hands of adults who would not be subject to this checking. I believe that that is wholly indefensible. It would be helpful if the Minister could answer that point when he answers the debate.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I think that we are missing something slightly. The amendment is designed to protect children. But the parents could be young and vulnerable. So the amendment protects the parents as well.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I have certainly listened, and I will consider everything that has been said in the debate so far. I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and other noble Lords, in terms of what I say, which to my mind affords an adequate response to their quite legitimate concerns, perhaps to enter into further discussions with me subsequently.
	I start from the position of accepting the thrust of the concerns of the noble Baroness. One is aware of the risks to which children in accommodation centres with limited English and in a different culture could be exposed.
	As noble Lords know, most of the establishments to which Section 36(2) applies are where children are separated from their families or educational establishments. Accommodation centres do not fall into that category since asylum-seeker children will be in the care of their family or guardian. There are many other government organisations or institutions—for example, hospitals—where Section 36(2) does not currently apply.
	I shall briefly set out what we believe will address adequately noble Lords' concerns. First, we all know that the best protection is to ensure that children are taught how to be safe. That is often done through schools. We shall ensure that that is part of the curriculum for the on-site educational provision. Teachers are often well-placed to detect any problems and skilled in helping children to deal with them. Again, we shall ensure that that is part of the education curriculum in the accommodation centres.
	Further, we undertake to consult relevant children's organisations in order to learn from their work and experience and to get their advice on how best to build in these protections at accommodation centres.
	As one would expect, all accommodation centres will be required to have a child protection policy and procedures for putting it into effect. Clearly those will be open for inspection and study by the monitor or by the advisory group. One would expect the advisory group to be alert in looking for potential areas of risk or concern.
	We are already consulting with the Department of Health about the detailed arrangements that we need to make to ensure we have the right procedures and policies in place.
	Lastly—I think that this achieves the same objective that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned, albeit by different means—we will write into the contract with the safety operator the requirement that all of those working in accommodation centres, including the ancillary staff that she correctly identified as not being covered by our previous discussion, undergo the highest level of criminal record check. That will be part of the specification for the contract, rather than part of the contract submission with prices by the supplier.
	I can therefore envisage no reason whatever why that contract should not be in the public domain and available for inspection by any Member of the House who wants to read it. In other words, that commitment will be on the record and the contractual documentation will spell it out. Again, one would expect the monitor, when he or she visited, to ensure that the contractor was in practice complying with the requirements. It therefore seems to the Government that that achieves exactly the position sought by the noble Baroness, albeit by a slightly different route.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he answer the following question? Why do the Government deem it necessary to underpin by law the obligation on teachers in all of our schools to carry out those checks but not to underpin by law the obligation on teachers in these circumstances to perform such checks?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am open to correction, but I am not aware that there is such a distinction. I shall take that question away to consider most carefully and write to the noble Baroness shortly. If the distinction that she advances exists, there is clearly an issue to which we must respond.

Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I ask how he intends to discharge the Government's obligation under Article 22 on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? It states:
	"States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that a child who is seeking refugee status",
	shall be considered a refugee in accordance with applicable international or domestic law and procedure and shall,
	"receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment of applicable rights".
	How are the Government discharging that obligation?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, by the methods that I have just stated in my response to the debate.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendment. In response to the interesting point rightly advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that some accommodation centres may not contain children, the problem is that the Government have decided to choose this "one size" policy for all accommodation centres and are not at present able to tell us exactly how many children there will be or where—or, indeed, whether there will be further accommodation centres and whether children will be in them. So we must adopt the same method as have the Government in approaching a "one size" policy.
	Perhaps I may start with the good news for the Minister, which is that I am grateful to him for his comments on what are in fact my later amendments, commencing with those grouped with Amendment No. 28, when he referred to child protection policy within the centres. I hope that we shall soon reach Amendment No. 28; I am most grateful to him for his response, because that will enable me to be extremely brief indeed on those matters.
	I must say that I am most disappointed with the Minister's response to Amendment No. 24. Perhaps there is still a straightforward difference of opinion between us. I respect his view, but I feel strongly and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, sits down, perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, with further detail. Accommodation centres will mirror the protection available in the community. Teachers in accommodation centres will be subject to checks in exactly the same way as they would in a village school outside.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was referring to all adults working with children.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 24) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 56.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 27 [Facilities]:

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 25A:
	Page 14, line 29, at end insert "and must provide a resident of an accommodation centre with access to legal advice from suitably qualified advisors"

Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for a remark that he made almost entirely without thinking and from which I drew considerable encouragement. He said that he wanted decision-making to be speeded up as fast as it properly may. I found the addition of the adverb extremely welcome. The quality of the first decision-making is crucial to the speeding up of the process, and legal advice is crucial to the speeding up of first decision-making.
	I should explain that the wording of the amendment has been slightly altered in deference to a point made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, whose advice on matters of drafting is practically always worth taking and always worth taking seriously.
	The wording in the amendment tabled previously was "competent legal advice". I meant "competent" in the old-fashioned sense of competence in the field involved. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, took it in the more modern sense of ability, and said that it could be very difficult to decide whether legal advice was competent. I have therefore changed the words of the amendment to,
	"legal advice from suitably qualified advisors",
	which I believe will make no practical difference to the Minister's reply. I am grateful to his officials for their courtesy in relation to this matter yesterday.
	Legal advice enables the courts or the adjudicator to address their mind properly to the questions under discussion and it may enable them to avoid some of the grosser errors which creep into the early stages of the process, leading to appeals, judicial review, re-hearings and letters to the Minister which I think the Minister will agree it is better to keep to a minimum if possible.
	When, on 24th September, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, repeated the Prime Minister's Statement on Iraq, he asked us to read with great care the section of the report that dealt with human rights in Iraq. I have done so. It made my blood run cold. But the Home Office is still returning Kurds to northern Iraq on the grounds that it is safe. Any competent lawyer or legal adviser should be able to prevent that sort of thing from happening. It will save the Home Office as well as the applicant a great deal of trouble if it does. The poor quality of first decision-making is the first thing that must be addressed if the process is to be speeded up.
	Perhaps I may quote from another adjudication, in June 2001, in the case of an applicant from the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is quoted in the current newsletter of the Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees, of which I have the honour to be a patron. The adjudicator said:
	"You allege that you were beaten, left naked, and left in a cell soaked in urine. Your claim that this constitutes torture is so incredible as to cast doubt on the credibility of all the rest of your testimony".
	I do not believe that any competent legal adviser would have let that go by without a good deal of comment. It is precisely the kind of thing that we need to prevent if we want the process not to be dragged out, which is the express wish of the Home Office. To use the Minister's adverb, if it can be done properly, we are entirely in agreement with it.
	The provision in the Bill as drafted is not bad, but it is very limited. It says:
	"The Secretary of State may arrange for the provision of facilities in an accommodation centre for the use of a person in providing legal advice to a resident of the centre".
	Those words in themselves contain nothing objectionable. The amendment insists not that legal advice should necessarily be provided in the centre but that it be made available. It would be of great assistance to the doing of justice and the speeding up of the process, while saving much unnecessary trouble and a great deal of the time of this House, the Minister and Members of Parliament.
	One of my friends in another place told me recently that he observed my honourable friend Mr Hughes come into the Library carrying a pile of correspondence so big he could hardly lift it. When my friend asked Mr Hughes whether he was carrying his entire week's correspondence, he replied that it was half his weekly correspondence on asylum. That is the sort of situation that results for Members of all parties from there not being proper legal advice before the first decision. If we get the first decision right, we can get on with it and we will all be saved much trouble. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I support the views of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I do so as a solicitor with more than 50 years' experience. It is important that the solicitor who advises on the matters envisaged by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, should be well versed in difficult areas of the law. It is simply not possible for all solicitors to be vested with the knowledge on this matter that we take for granted. The issues may be difficult, complex and outside the realms of knowledge of the person appointed by the Home Secretary. For that reason, it is highly important that residents have access to the best possible legal advice in the circumstances. I ask my noble friend what advice, if any, he has received from the Law Society and the Bar Council in this regard. It is very important that in a minority of cases of such complexity, those two bodies should be heard. If the noble Earl has not had the opportunity to consult with them, it is not impossible for him to do so before we consider the matter afresh.
	The simple argument that I adduce is that some areas of the law have not been covered by those who would normally give advice on immigration matters. The legal issues may be complex and may go beyond the realms of advisers' knowledge.
	I am not proposing to vote on this, because I hope that it will be covered by everyday practice, but I ask my noble friend to give the House an assurance in this regard.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I hesitate to follow my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, with his 50 years of legal experience as a solicitor, because I cannot claim to be a lawyer in any respect. I therefore look at the issue from the point of view of those who use lawyers as distinct from the view of the legal profession.
	I am a little puzzled by the Bill. The amendment should at least be considered carefully. The Bill recognises the possibility that legal advice may be appropriate in such a centre. However, as I understand it from the standpoint of the layman, the Secretary of State is potentially a party to the legal process, yet it is the Secretary of State who will decide whether legal advice will be available. If the possibility that legal advice would be appropriate is recognised, it would be much better to say that it is provided and then it takes its course rather than saying that it is up to the Secretary of State, when someone may want to appeal against the Secretary of State.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, unless I am mistaken, we are returning to a matter that we discussed at cols. 773-83 in Committee. Winding up that debate, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said:
	"The debate has shown the Chamber at its best".—[Official Report, 10/7/02; col. 782.]
	I enjoyed reading what we discussed on that occasion.
	As I understood the course of events on the previous occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, defended the Government's position in the context of the Legal Services Commission. I agree that there was an element of dancing on the end of a pin, but it was perfectly possible to follow the argument. The noble Lord remained in the air on the top of his pin. However, in the closing stages of the debate he said that my noble friend Lord Kingsland and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, had both made good points that he would take away and consider.
	As nobody can speak after the Minister has uttered on Report, I have taken it that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was putting a probing amendment to find out the outcome of the re-examination of the issues in question promised by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. If I have got that wrong, I apologise to the House. It seems to me that some of the things that have been said during the debate have been not even going over old ground, but opening up new ground. I may have misunderstood the purpose of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in bringing the matter back.

Earl Russell: My Lords, if I may help the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for a moment, the key point in my amendment is that it substitutes "must" for "may".

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Russell. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that he was puzzled by the Bill. I am a little puzzled by the attitude of the Government, and in particular by the views of the Minister, on the provision of legal advice, particularly in the early stages of an asylum application before the substantive interview, which forms the basis of the initial decision. Many of us with experience of trying to help and support asylum seekers through the system—many noble Lords and others are far more experienced at that than I am—are concerned that a major problem still lies in the quality of the initial decisions. If that could be improved, the time taken in many cases and the cost of the whole system to the Exchequer could be reduced. That is the background to my comments.
	The amendment covers legal advice throughout the process, on the initial decision and on appeal. Legal advice before the substantive interview, which is the basis of the initial decision, is crucial. I say that from personal experience and from what others tell me. People who arrive and apply for asylum are often suffering a high degree of trauma, because of what has happened to them in their country, because of the nature of the journey and their efforts to get to this country, or simply because of the whole experience of leaving their country and setting off into the unknown. However, that trauma is often associated with a sense of euphoria—it is often a superficial and false euphoria—about having arrived in this country where they can apply for asylum. They may feel that they have arrived here at last and are safe.
	A third factor is fear of the future; they have arrived in a country which they have never visited before and must negotiate a system and a bureaucracy they do not understand. We discussed this issue in Committee when we talked about the induction process and induction centres. I applaud the Government's wish to assist newly arrived asylum seekers to understand the system. However, in those early days, people may find it very difficult to think rationally, to understand what is required and to present a rational case. They may also have difficulties with the language. The combination of factors may not be an insuperable obstacle, but it could be a huge obstacle. Moreover, in many cases, the more "genuine" the asylum seeker, in the parlance, the more difficult they may find the process.
	Asylum seekers may also face the problem of knowing which documents they need, and which are the crucial ones in supporting their claim. They may also require practical assistance in trying to retrieve those documents as quickly as possible.
	In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said:
	"We are committed to ensuring that all asylum seekers have access to legal advice if they want it at all stages of the asylum process. This applies equally to accommodation centre residents. We will ensure that there are sufficient advisers available for accommodation centre residents to receive that advice".—[Official Report, 10/7/02; col. 778.]
	It was a very positive and very welcome statement.
	I am, however, concerned about other aspects of the issue. This summer, I tabled a Written Question to the Government which was answered on 23rd September. I should add parenthetically that the Hansard for the recall on 24th September does not seem to have been put on the House of Lords website. Perhaps someone can see to that; it seems to be completely missing. The point is tangential to this debate, but it is true as far as I can see.
	In my Written Question, I was concerned about whether the minimum period of 10 working days—a fortnight, which the Government said was the minimum they would allow—between people leaving the induction centre and attending their substantive interview would be sufficient for them to obtain both competent legal advice and documents from difficult countries abroad. The answer that I received from the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, caused me great alarm and seems to be at variance with the positive answer that he gave in Committee. In his Answer he said:
	"The briefing"—
	at the induction process—
	"makes it clear that an asylum seeker may seek legal representation but that this is not deemed necessary prior to attendance at a substantive interview, and an interview will not be delayed because of a lack of representation. This is consistent with the Government's view that it is not necessary for an asylum seeker to obtain legal representation prior to a substantive asylum interview".—[Official Report, 24/9/02; col. WA 212.]
	The literal meaning and the sense behind it are contrary to the words used by the Minister in Committee. We need to understand whether the Government are committed to providing asylum seekers with legal advice and representation before they attend their substantive interview. My view and that of many people involved with asylum seekers is that without such advice the case they put forward at the interview will not be as clear and full as it otherwise might. It will not be as relevant in terms of what is required to satisfy the needs of the system. That leads to more bad decisions and appeals. People obtain legal advice at a later stage and in many cases the appeals are upheld.
	The Minister seemed to say different things on those two occasions. In replying, I ask him to clarify whether the Government believe that legal advice is necessary in the period before the substantive interview takes place. If not, will they be honest and say so clearly, so that we can establish the point of difference between us?

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I agree fully with both the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I add that legal advice does not always have to be provided by a solicitor. There are casework bodies which have built up an enormous amount of experience: the Immigration Advisory Service and certain expert voluntary bodies whose casework has been impeccable over many years. I support the amendment.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville said, we discussed this matter at some length in Committee. Since my views have not changed during the intervening summer interlude, I shall simply summarise the approach I believe the Government should take.
	The Bill has two fundamental objectives; first, to expedite the asylum procedure, without, secondly, in any way undermining the fairness of the procedures already in place. It seeks to achieve expedition and fairness simultaneously. If the Government mean that, it would be wise to accept the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Clause 27(3) states:
	"The Secretary of State may arrange for the provision of facilities in an accommodation centre for the use of a person in providing legal advice to a resident of the centre".
	The Secretary of State is not obliged to provide such facilities; he only "may". That is the first weakness of the clause. Secondly, he has no obligation to provide the legal advice. All he does, if he so desires, is provide facilities for the use of someone providing legal advice. Thirdly, legal advice under this clause is likely to be financed by the Legal Services Commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, knows, the test for providing legal advice in civil matters is stiff. In many cases, those who seek legal advice on immigration matters will not be deemed to have a sufficiently good case for obtaining it.
	Here, therefore, are three fundamental weaknesses in the quality of legal advice which will have to be altered by the Government if the joint test of fairness and expedition is to be met. The Secretary of State should be obliged to arrange for the provision of facilities, together with an obligation to ensure that those facilities are provided by an appropriately qualified lawyer and financed by legal aid furnished on the criminal and not the civil standard. All those, in my submission, are absolutely essential if an asylum seeker is to receive the kind of advice that we think he ought to have at the earliest possible stage of the procedure.
	If that legal advice is provided to an asylum seeker at an early stage, if the asylum seeker knows where he stands, and if he is advised he has no chance of success, then the Government, with a completely clear conscience, can go ahead with whatever procedure they think is appropriate to bring matters to a close. But unless that legal advice is provided, the Government cannot with a clear conscience do that. The longer the Government delay, the less expeditious the process will be. In my submission there is no more powerful amendment tabled at Report stage than that by the noble Earl.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I shall be brief. Will the Minister consult the Lord Chancellor's Department which is responsible for legal aid matters before he reacts to the comments of my noble friend Lord Greaves? Will he also bring to the attention of the Lord Chancellor the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights which states:
	"We would expect the Department to be able to inform each House of the steps which would be taken, in all accommodation centres, actively to discharge the responsibility to inform people of their rights and of the accessibility of appropriate legal advice"?
	The committee concludes:
	"The enjoyment of due process rights depends on effective access to appropriate legal advice. We draw these concerns to the attention of each House".
	I hope that the Lord Chancellor's Department will be consulted before this matter is concluded.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, this amendment has the support of these Benches for reasons already given. This is an important safeguard which it seems all sides of the House support. I hope very much that the Government will look favourably on it.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, as has been mentioned, we previously had a significant debate on this important set of issues. I shall seek to describe how we envisage the process will work. I hope that that will address the questions which have been raised.
	When an asylum seeker leaves an induction centre he will have been briefed about the asylum process. A decision will have been made as to whether he qualifies for support and, if so, whether he will be placed in an accommodation centre. On arrival at the accommodation centre, residents will be briefed in general and effectively this will be an orientation exercise so that they understand what facilities are available and what is required of them.
	We are clear that quality initial interviews are in the interest of both the applicant and the Government in terms of ensuring processes work smoothly and with a minimum of confusion or later complications in the legal process. Therefore, our position is—as it has been—that early legal advice is extremely beneficial and useful. I am not using weasel words; I shall sharpen that in a minute.
	One of the arguments for accommodation centres is that they constitute a much more managed process. I refer to Oakington in that regard. Facilities are provided on-site. I refer to the legal interview rooms which have already been mentioned. Translation facilities will be provided on-site. NGOs may also provide facilities on-site if they wish to establish such a presence.
	Before the initial interview the asylum applicant will have the opportunity to obtain legal advice from one of the legal advisers or the NGOs, if they are present, who will be based on-site or who will visit the centre to provide advice prior to the initial interview. As I have indicated, the facilities for such interviews will also be provided as part of the contract for providing the accommodation facilities.
	If asylum applicants decided that they did not want to use the lawyer, or lawyers, that were available on site, they would be at liberty to arrange for someone else. However, it would be their responsibility to arrange that within the time-scale set for the interview.
	The nub of the issue, which is why we are going as far as we can—I believe as far as possible—is to make it clear that there will be the availability of advice. Based on our experience, it is a fact that if one said that legal advice had to be available as of right, that would be used by some—one hopes not many—as a cause for delay in the process. They would basically say that they have not got the lawyer they want, or that they want further time to prepare and, therefore, are not ready.
	Therefore, we are saying that there will be a lawyer or lawyers there for them to use if they wish. We believe that it is desirable for them to have legal advice, but it is not essential for the initial interview to be conducted, if they choose not to use the lawyer.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, have the Law Society and the Bar Council been consulted about this? If so, what have they replied?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, unless memory fails me that was the question that my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davies asked me earlier. I have not yet concluded my speech, so I shall expect to be receiving further advice on that before I conclude.
	To continue: I hope that I have made it clear that we are committed to ensuring the availability of legal advice, without getting locked into the issue of a person using it as a device to delay the process.
	Will an adequate number of legal advisers be available? As indicated previously, that is not an issue for the Home Secretary, it is an issue for the Legal Services Commission. The Lord Chancellor's Department is confident that there will be no difficulty in having legal advisers taking up the offer of such contracts in accommodation centres, because there will be an almost guaranteed stream of work. Office accommodation will be provided that will be serviced by lawyers who will either come in from other practices or be based during the working day in those facilities. It seems to us, and to the Lord Chancellor's Department, that there is every reason to be confident that there should be a good supply of lawyers.
	Will they be suitably qualified? That is the next reasonable question and challenge. Will they be independent? Clearly, they are independent of the Home Secretary; he has no hand in the matter. To provide advice on immigration and asylum matters, solicitors and advice agencies must have a contract with the Legal Services Commission in that specific category. The legal advice must be independent, otherwise the quality mark will not be available.
	It seems that, as far as can be provided for any other resident of the United Kingdom, the legal advice ought to be available; ought to be independent; and ought to be suitably qualified.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised the question of whether people would qualify for legal representation. Legal help is the first level of service available to asylum seekers and covers general advice, preparation of letters and negotiations. There is no merit test as such, although legal help may be provided only where there is sufficient benefit to the client having regard to the circumstances of the case. The reality is that asylum seekers will satisfy that test.
	Furthermore, destitute asylum seekers will, by definition, fall within the financial criteria and residents of accommodation centres, by definition, are without means, otherwise they would not have been granted support. It is difficult to see a situation whereby a resident of an accommodation centre will be able to avail himself of that facility in terms of that element of the qualification.
	The next level of service in this context is that of controlled legal representation, which concerns a solicitor covering all work needed to take legal proceedings before the immigration appellate authorities. Clearly, there should be an independent immigration appellate authority on the accommodation site. That is one of the benefits we have discussed in terms of the onsite legal process.
	Applicants must satisfy both the financial and merit test. We have covered the financial grounds—the argument is obvious. On merit grounds, where the prospects of success are 50 per cent or higher, it is automatically available. In circumstances where the prospects are unclear or borderline—the noble Earl raised that matter previously—legal representation will again be authorised where the case has a significant wider public interest, or is of overwhelming importance to the client, or raises significant human rights issues. Again, one could well envisage that there could be circumstances when that will trigger legal advice, even though it has not met the 50 per cent test.
	That brings us to the remaining cases where the prospects of success are poor—that is, where the prospects of success are clearly less than 50 per cent so that the claim is likely to fail. We make no apology for the fact that legal representation would not be provided in those cases, as would be the case of any British citizen in such circumstances.
	I turn to some of the questions that were raised with regard to the Law Society and the Bar Council. I am advised that there is no change to current policy and we are aware that they consider advice important. Reading between the lines, that sounds as though the answer to the question is probably "No", but I will double check that.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. Will he give an undertaking to the House that in the intervening period between now and the next stage of the proceedings the Bar Council and the Law Society will be consulted?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, it would be churlish to say no. We are not necessarily bound by their views, but no doubt we will write to them to see what their views are on the matter. However, I hope that I have gone a considerable way to spell out in exactly what circumstances we believe legal advice is likely to be available and the reasons why it will not be in terms of low merit cases before the IAA when there is no wider interest.
	I have not directly responded to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, although in practice there is no inconsistency. However, perhaps the letter could have been slightly more carefully worded in order to avoid misapprehension. What I have said reaffirms on the record our view that it is highly beneficial that before initial interviews people take up the offer of legal advice. The offer will be there, but the fact that a person has not taken legal advice will not prevent an interview going forward.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for that clarification. I believe it is helpful and I will read it carefully in Hansard. All systems, no matter how well-funded and good-intentioned, occasionally break down. Will the Minister tell the House what the situation will be if an asylum seeker chooses to take legal advice but, for reasons which are not his or her fault, is unable to obtain it before the date for the substantial interview? Would that be a reason for deferral?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is a good question. In the normal run of events, the answer would be "No". As regards the specific circumstances of how we want accommodation centres to work—we want to strengthen the robustness of initial decisions—I would like to reflect on the question to see whether I can go further than what I have said from the Dispatch Box. If so I will write to the noble Lord rapidly before Third Reading. I have taken the House's time and I hope that at least some of what I have said has been helpful.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. When the noble Lord talked about the prospect of delay, suddenly a light began to dawn on me: this is the sort of answer that you get when you take some of the very best brains in the country and send them away with a brief saying, "Think of a reason for saying no". A great deal of our government is conducted on that principle. I must confess that I was irresistibly reminded of the experience of tying my worn shoelace in a hurry when late for work. Your Lordships know very well what that leads to. The desire to avoid delay is the commonest single cause of delay. That is the experience, just as much in handling asylum claims as it is in tying shoelaces. The Home Office might well take warning from that example.
	I was most grateful for the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and by the right reverend Prelate. My noble friend Lord Greaves will not misunderstand me if I say that I was considerably perturbed by listening to what he had to say. They may not, as the Minister said, be formally contradicted, but they are two completely different voices. I have been looking at the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights which quotes what the Government have said to it:
	"The Government does not accept that legal advice is necessary in order to make claims for asylum. However, the Government is committed to providing access to quality legal advice at all stages of the asylum claim and accepts that, in certain circumstances, access to legal advice is likely to be beneficial in order to make faster progress on a claim".
	I believe that the right reverend Prelate might agree that those words have a certain, shall I say, antiphonal quality. They do not formally contradict each other, but they do represent two really different approaches. Those approaches have not yet been reconciled in the minds of the Home Office.
	I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to comment on the words "in certain circumstances" that were used to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I should have been inclined to say in all circumstances. But on the point of delay, I might draw the Minister's attention to the fact that this amendment does not say that claimants must have a particular lawyer; it says that they must have "access" to a lawyer. Since the Government tightened up on those qualified to advise there has been less trouble than there used to be over rogue lawyers who cause delay by taking a case and then dropping it.
	I remember one of those claimants—one of the "Campsfield 9" with whom I was in correspondence. He had been dumped by two lawyers in succession who failed to turn up at the hearings. Finally, to his great good fortune, he came into contact with the firm of Christian Fisher, which called me in. Between us we managed to get the case organised and he was finally recognised as having a genuine claim to asylum. If he had had "suitably qualified legal advice" at the beginning of the process, that would have happened without an immense amount of correspondence, appeals, detention in Rochester Prison, emergency telephone calls in the middle of the night, and a great deal else of the sort of thing with which this subject is plagued and from which we would all, thankfully, be spared.
	I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that "suitably qualified" must mean a qualification in asylum law. Lawyers generally qualified in immigration law are not necessarily qualified to handle cases in asylum law. It is like the point that I have made previously; namely, that having asylum and immigration handled by the same department in the Home Office causes problems because the outlooks diverge very widely.
	I very much hope that the Minister will further consider the matter before we reach the next stage of the Bill. I do not believe that I can pursue the issue tonight, but I shall want to hear whether the Minister has given the matter any further thought when we come to the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 28 [Conditions of residence]:
	[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
	Clause 30 [Tenure]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 27:
	Page 16, line 19, at end insert-
	"( ) The following shall be inserted after section 23A(5A) of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 58) (excluded tenancies and occupancy rights)—
	"(5B) Nothing in section 23 of this Act applies to a resident's occupancy of an accommodation centre provided under section 14 or 22(b) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 00) ("resident" being construed in accordance with section 25 of that Act).""

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is a minor and technical government amendment, which clarifies the position in respect of accommodation centres and housing rights in Scotland. Unless pressed, I have no intention of adding further to those comments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at one minute past midnight.